The Emerging Brand’s Playbook for the U.S. Toy and Game Industry

Key takeaways

• The U.S. toy and game market grew from roughly $23 billion in 2000 to $30 billion in 2025 on the reported series, or about $10.4 billion in real growth once the 2012 NPD panel reset is adjusted for.
• The often-quoted 1.9% CAGR is misleading. A 2012 methodology change removed $4 to $5 billion of real demand from the tracked figures without any drop in consumer spending.
• 2025 delivered +6% growth, the strongest non-pandemic year in more than a decade. Games and Puzzles became the largest supercategory at $4.9 billion, up 37%.
• Adults are the growth engine. Consumers over 12 account for roughly 25% of U.S. toy and game revenue, and sales to recipients 18 and older grew 18% in H1 2025.
• Price, not volume, is the emerging brand’s lever. Premium toys priced $30 to $69.99 grew 18% in 2025. Klugonyx toy and game clients average a $68.19 retail price versus a $10.85 market average.
• Compliance is design work, not paperwork. Industry first-pass test failure rates run 20 to 40%. Klugonyx toy, game, and baby clients run at or below 10% by building CPSIA and ASTM F963 requirements into the design brief.
• Tooling is the capital cliff. Toy tooling runs $10,000 to $100,000-plus and takes six to twelve weeks per mold. Integrated DFM saves Klugonyx clients $100,000 to $500,000 and three to six months.
• 2026 is a supply chain year. With 77% of U.S. toys imported from China, 87% of mid-size and 81% of small toy companies reported delayed orders. Central 2026 growth projection: approximately +2%.

Skim the takeaways, then jump to the section you need →

Executive summary

The U.S. toy and game industry is a $30 billion market that grew more than $10 billion in real terms over 26 years, returned to 6% growth in 2025, and now sits roughly 35% above its 2019 baseline. The opportunity for emerging brands is wider than the headline CAGR suggests, but it closes fast for founders who treat safety compliance, design for manufacturability, and factory vetting as finishing steps rather than as the work itself.

The U.S. toy and game industry has a perception problem. A 1.9% compound annual growth rate sounds modest. A market dominated by Mattel, Hasbro, and Lego sounds impenetrable. A category that saw a historic pandemic spike followed by a sharp correction sounds volatile and risky.

None of those readings tell the full story.

Over the last 25 years, the industry grew by more than $10 billion in real terms, proved more resilient than nearly every other consumer category during economic downturns, and quietly developed several high-growth niches that are outpacing the broad market by double digits. The brands winning inside those niches right now are not the giants. They are lean, founder-led companies that identified a specific unmet need, built a well-designed product around it, and got their manufacturing and supply chain right before they ran out of runway.

You can see what that looks like in practice in our toy and game project gallery.

This white paper makes a simple argument: the window for emerging toy and game brands is wider than the headline numbers suggest, but it closes fast for founders who misread the operational requirements of the category. Safety compliance, design for manufacturability, factory vetting, and retail readiness are not finishing steps. They are the work. The brands that treat them that way scale. The brands that treat them as administrative hurdles almost never make it to a second product.

In 2025, the industry confirmed that thesis. Following two years of stagnation, the U.S. toy market returned to 6% growth, its strongest non-pandemic performance in more than a decade, driven not by broad-based volume but by a concentrated bet on premium products, licensed IP, and fandom-driven collectibles. That is a category being shaped by exactly the kind of brands this paper is written for.

What follows is a 26-year look at the market and what it reveals, a map of where the real growth lives today, an honest breakdown of what it takes to enter the category successfully, and four case studies from brands that made it work.

Why is the toy industry’s 1.9% CAGR misleading?

Because a 2012 NPD Group methodology change removed $4 to $5 billion of real sales from the tracked series without any decline in consumer demand. Adjusting for that reset, the market grew roughly $10.4 billion (about 58%) between 2000 and 2025, not the $7 billion (about 30%) the raw series shows.

Ask anyone familiar with the toy and game industry what the long-term growth rate looks like and you will hear some version of the same answer: steady, modest, mature. The 1.9% CAGR from 2000 to 2025 is technically accurate and practically misleading at the same time.

The U.S. toy and game market, as tracked by NPD Group (now Circana), grew from approximately $23 billion in 2000 to $30 billion in 2025. That is $7 billion in net growth on the reported series, or roughly 30% in nominal terms. Adjust for a significant methodology change in 2012, and the real picture is closer to $10.4 billion in growth, or about 58%.

That methodology change matters enough to explain in full, because it created a persistent misunderstanding about the health of the category that affects how people evaluate the opportunity today.

The 2012 panel reset: what really happened

In 2012, NPD Group conducted what it called a “panel reset,” a requalification of how it tracked toy and game sales at the point of sale. The stated goal was to improve accuracy by focusing on retailers with verifiable UPC-based transaction data. The practical effect was that a significant portion of the market dropped out of the reported figures entirely, not because those sales disappeared, but because the outlets where they happened were no longer tracked.

The categories and retail channels that fell out of NPD’s coverage after 2012 included independent hobby shops and specialty toy retailers without UPC-based inventory systems, museum and zoo gift stores, seasonal mall kiosks, small dollar and grocery formats, and theme park vendors. Several product categories were also reclassified into other verticals: hobby-grade R/C vehicles moved to Sporting Goods, large outdoor playsets moved to Outdoor/Sporting Goods, child-targeted tablets and smart speakers moved to Consumer Electronics, and digital game sales shifted to their own tracking category.

The net effect was a reported market decline of approximately $4 to $5 billion between 2011 and 2012, from roughly $21.18 billion to $17 billion. Consumer demand in those categories did not fall. They simply became invisible to the methodology.

For anyone evaluating the toy industry based on the raw CAGR, this is the correction that transforms the story. The post-2012 market is smaller only on paper.

What the ups and downs actually tell us

Peaks in the toy category are driven by cultural moments (Pokemon, Star Wars, Webkinz, COVID lockdowns) rather than gradual demand growth. Troughs are shallower than in other consumer categories, because parents keep buying toys even when they cut other spending. That combination means high volatility on the upside and structural resilience on the downside.

The 26-year chart is not a flat line. It moves with the culture, with the economy, and occasionally with a single toy that captures the world’s attention for six months. Understanding what drove the peaks and valleys matters more than the average, because it reveals the underlying mechanics of the category.

The peaks are not random. The 2000 high was driven by Pokemon and Star Wars Episode I licensing. The 2006 surge was Webkinz and TMX Elmo. The 2015 spike was Star Wars: The Force Awakens adding an estimated $700 million in licensed product sales. The 2020 explosion at plus 16% happened because 330 million Americans were locked inside with their children and nothing to do. Games and puzzles alone grew 38% that year. And in 2025, Pokemon alone generated $2.5 billion in U.S. toy sales, up 87% year over year, becoming the first single property to exceed $2 billion in a calendar year in at least two decades.

What those peaks share is not luck. They reflect a category that responds faster and more dramatically to cultural moments than almost any other consumer goods vertical. The downside is volatility. The upside is that a well-positioned brand at the right cultural moment can see growth that no amount of marketing spend could manufacture.

The troughs reveal resilience, not fragility. The 2001 to 2003 decline followed 9/11 and the dot-com collapse. The 2008 financial crisis hit the broader economy harder than it hit toys. The 2022 to 2023 correction followed one of the most unusual demand periods in the category’s history. In each case, toys underperformed expectations on the downside relative to other consumer categories. Parents keep buying toys even when they cut other spending. That is structural, not coincidental.

The 26-year timeline: key moments

Confirmed 2025 figures: Circana, February 3, 2026. For supply chain strategy in the current tariff environment, see our guide to transitioning manufacturing beyond China.

The post-pandemic baseline: the most important number in this document

For an emerging brand evaluating the market today, the right comparison is not the 2020 to 2021 pandemic peak. It is the 2019 pre-pandemic baseline. Toy sales in 2025 sit approximately 35% above 2019 levels on the tracked Circana series.

The category has now demonstrated positive growth through three distinct post-pandemic phases: the 2020 to 2021 surge, the 2022 to 2023 correction, and the 2025 recovery. Each phase has resolved higher than its starting point. That is a category with structural resilience, not a one-time spike that has since normalized away.

The headline hides the niche opportunities

Inside the broad toy and game market, several segments are growing at two to five times the overall rate. They share one characteristic: they serve customers the traditional toy industry largely ignored, above all adults buying for themselves.

A 1.9% CAGR is an average. Averages flatten the distribution. Inside the broad toy and game market, several segments are growing at two to five times the overall rate, and those segments share a common characteristic: they serve customers the traditional toy industry largely ignored.

The most important shift in the last five years is demographic, not technological. Birth rates in the United States and most developed markets have been declining steadily. The 0 to 9-year-old cohort, the historical core of the toy market, is shrinking as a share of the population. The toy industry’s response to that reality has reshaped the category in ways that create real opportunity for emerging brands.

The kidult shift: your fastest-growing buyer is not a child

Consumers over the age of 12 now account for approximately 25% of all U.S. toy and game revenue. Sales to recipients aged 18 and older grew 18% in the first half of 2025, nearly evenly split between men and women.

The term “kidult” entered the toy industry’s vocabulary around 2019, but the behavior it describes goes back further. Adults have always bought toys, collectables, and games for themselves. What changed is the scale of it.

That 25% share grew 58% between 2021 and 2022 alone, according to Circana, and the trend accelerated further in 2025 (Circana, H1 2025). Growth in the 9 to 11 age group reached 9% and the 12 to 17 segment grew 6%. The implication is that the toy category’s most reliable growth engine is no longer the 0 to 9-year-old cohort that defined the industry for most of its history. It is adults buying for themselves, and older children buying with a collector’s mindset.

For emerging brands, the kidult segment offers something structurally attractive: buyers with higher disposable income, lower price sensitivity, and stronger loyalty to products that resonate with their identity. A well-designed product at $45 targeting an adult hobbyist in a specific niche outperforms a commodity toy at $12 fighting for shelf space against companies with nine-figure marketing budgets.

The strategic implication is significant. Emerging brands that position in the kidult or collector segment can compete on design quality, brand storytelling, and community rather than on production scale and distribution reach, which are exactly the dimensions where large incumbents have the advantage.

Four high-growth segments worth serious attention

Connected and IoT toys

STEM electronics, app-enhanced physical toys, AI voice integration, robotics kits, and augmented reality play experiences represent the category with the highest projected growth and the highest barrier to entry. The connected toy segment is forecast to grow 24% globally by 2030. The compliance complexity is real: software components add layers of testing requirements, and connectivity features bring data privacy regulations into scope for products targeting children.

Our toy and game design page outlines how we handle compliance planning from the first design brief. The premium price points and defensible intellectual property this segment allows make it worth the investment for the right brand.

Sustainably made toys

Consumer demand for toys made with recycled materials, FSC-certified wood, and non-toxic finishes has moved from a marketing claim to a purchasing criterion. The sustainably made toy segment is forecast to grow at a 13% global CAGR through 2032. The production cost is higher, but so is the price tolerance among the parents who prioritize it. The brands that build sustainable sourcing into their supply chain from the beginning will be better positioned than those retrofitting it after the fact.

Plush and emotional wellness toys

Plush has always cycled through boom and bust periods. What is different now is the amplification mechanism. TikTok virality can drive a plush product from niche to sellout in days rather than seasons. Combined with a documented rise in emotional wellness gifting across age groups, the plush segment carries a 6.1% projected CAGR through 2030. The low barrier to entry also means the space gets crowded quickly when a format goes viral, which makes differentiated design and brand identity more important than ever.

Tabletop and analog games

Board game and puzzle sales grew 38% during the 2020 lockdowns and have not fully retreated. Sales remain approximately 70% above 2019 levels. The “put the phone down” and intentional family time movements are durable cultural trends rather than pandemic-specific behaviors. The tabletop category also benefits from a strong independent retail channel, active enthusiast communities, and a robust crowdfunding ecosystem that lets emerging brands validate demand before committing to full production runs.

The 2025 results validated the tabletop and games category’s durability most dramatically. Games and Puzzles emerged as the largest toy supercategory in 2025, generating $4.9 billion in U.S. sales, up 37% year over year, driven primarily by Pokemon trading cards (Circana, February 2026). The category’s growth was not solely a trading card story: the broader shift toward analog, community-oriented play continues to compound.

For emerging brands in the tabletop space, 2025 established that this segment can sustain outsized growth even in a year of broader category normalization. Browse our toy and game project gallery to see examples of the range of products we have brought to market across age groups and play patterns.

The ASP shift: why unit volume is the wrong metric

Average selling price, not unit volume, is now the primary driver of brand health in toys. Premium products priced between $30 and $69.99 grew 18% in 2025, and category ASP rose 4% after three consecutive flat years. That removes one of the biggest structural disadvantages of being a small brand.

For most of the toy industry’s history, winning meant moving more units. Shelf space was won through volume, and volume was won through low prices. That model favored companies with the manufacturing scale to compete at $9.99 or below, which is to say it favored the giants.

The post-pandemic toy market looks different. Premium-positioned products are outperforming their volume equivalents. The 2025 data confirms this structurally (Circana, H1 2025). Consumers did not simply pay more for the same things. They deliberately traded up to products they valued more.

For an emerging brand, this shift removes one of the most significant structural disadvantages of being small. You will never out-manufacture Hasbro. You can out-design them in a niche. You can out-story them with a specific buyer. And if you price accordingly, you can build a healthy margin structure without needing the unit volume that would require a $20 million production budget to achieve.

These brands are not competing in the volume-driven, mass-market segment. They are building products that earn their price point through design quality, material investment, and focused market positioning.

Design decisions made early in development are what make a premium price point defensible at retail. Our post on design for manufacturability explains how to build quality and margin into a product from the first sketch, before any tooling investment is made. For common questions about cost and timeline, our FAQs page covers the most frequent questions we hear from founders in the early stages.

The five things that trip up emerging brands

The five most common failure points are underestimating safety and compliance, ignoring retailer-specific requirements, separating design from engineering, skipping factory vetting, and misjudging tooling cost and lead time. Each one is dramatically cheaper to solve before production than after it.

The toy and game industry is one of the most regulated consumer product categories in the United States. That is not a reason to avoid it. It is a reason to understand it before you start spending money on design and tooling.

The brands that make it to retail and survive there have one thing in common: they treated compliance, design, and manufacturing as integrated work from the beginning, not as a checklist to complete at the end. The brands that do not make it usually made the same set of mistakes, in roughly the same order. Here is what those mistakes look like, and what to do instead.

1. Underestimating safety and compliance

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and ASTM F963, the Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, set the baseline federal requirements for toys sold in the United States. Those requirements cover mechanical and physical properties, flammability, chemical content (including lead, phthalates, and heavy metals), electrical safety for battery-operated toys, and age grading. Third-party testing through a CPSC-accepted laboratory is mandatory for children’s products, not optional.

On top of federal requirements, California’s Proposition 65 imposes additional chemical disclosure and warning requirements. Brands selling into international markets face EN 71 in Europe and equivalent standards in other regions. Retailers layer their own requirements on top of all of that.

The mistake most emerging brands make is treating compliance as a final-stage activity. They design the product, prototype it, and then send it to a lab. When the test results come back with failures, they discover that fixing the compliance issue requires redesigning a component, which means new tooling, which means both time and money they no longer have.

The right approach is to build compliance requirements into the design brief before a single sketch is drawn. Material choices, component sizes, finish types, and labeling requirements all need to be on the table at the beginning of the design process. This is one of the most concrete reasons why working with a team that has deep toy category experience from day one reduces development cost and timeline significantly.

The difference is attributable to compliance requirements being built into the design brief rather than reviewed at the end.

External resources: CPSC CPSIA requirements for children’s products; ASTM F963 Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety.

We wrote a detailed guide to this in How to Make Safe Baby and Kids Products, which covers CPSIA, ASTM F963, Prop 65, and age grading in plain language. For the most common compliance questions we hear from first-time toy and baby product founders, our FAQs page is a good starting point. If you want to talk through what applies to your specific product before you have committed to a design direction, reach out to our team.

2. Ignoring retailer-specific requirements until it is too late

Federal compliance gets you into the legal minimum. It does not get you into Target.

Major retailers including Target, Walmart, Costco, and Amazon each maintain their own supplier compliance programs that go beyond regulatory minimums. These typically include factory audit certification requirements (BSCI, SEDEX SMETA, or equivalent), packaging specification compliance, product testing documentation in specific formats, and in some cases factory social compliance standards that require on-site audits conducted by approved third parties.

The timeline for meeting these requirements is longer than most founders expect. A factory audit can take weeks to schedule and complete. Corrective actions from an audit can take months to resolve. And retailers typically require documentation in advance of a buyer meeting or purchase order, not after.

The Smol case study in Section 4 illustrates this precisely. When Smol secured a retail partnership with Target, the compliance work required to meet Target’s factory standards was a project in itself. Having a manufacturing partner already embedded in that process meant the work could happen in parallel with production planning rather than delaying it.

Our manufacturing capabilities page covers how we manage factory audit and retail compliance across all major U.S. retail channels.

3. Separating design from engineering

The toy and game industry has a higher-than-average rate of products that look great in a prototype and fail in production. The reason is almost always the same: design and engineering were not talking to each other from the beginning.

A small part that functions perfectly in a hand-built prototype becomes an ASTM F963 choking hazard during third-party testing. A texture that looks beautiful in a CAD render requires a finish process that doubles unit cost at production scale. A mechanism that works in one material is impossible to achieve in the material needed to hit the target retail price.

None of these problems are unsolvable. All of them are significantly cheaper to solve at the sketch stage than at the tooling stage.

The practical implication is to require a manufacturing and engineering check-in at every stage of the design process, not just at hand-off. At Klugonyx, the design, engineering, and manufacturing teams work together from the first kick-off meeting. Manufacturing cost and compliance requirements inform concept decisions before any significant investment is made in a direction. That is what design for manufacturability means in practice, and it is the single biggest timeline and cost lever available to an emerging toy brand.

Our post on design for manufacturability goes deeper on how this works and why decisions made in the first two weeks of a project can either protect or destroy margin at production scale. For an overview of what our design process looks like end to end, see our design capabilities page.

A complete tech pack is what makes the factory handoff airtight. It documents every material choice, tolerance, color spec, and assembly instruction so nothing gets lost in translation. Our tech pack guide explains what goes in one and why incomplete documentation is the most common reason first factory runs fail.

4. Factory vetting: the work most brands skip

Sourcing a toy factory is categorically different from sourcing a commodity manufacturer. You are sharing proprietary CAD files, tooling designs, and product specifications with a facility that may have relationships with your competitors, limited IP enforcement infrastructure, and a very different understanding of what a confidentiality agreement means.

The foundational protections are an NDA that is enforceable in the factory’s country of origin (not just signed as paperwork in yours), a legally binding factory agreement that covers cost, timeline, and quality standards, and tooling ownership documentation that establishes your ownership of any molds or dies produced for your product.

Beyond legal protections, a thorough factory vetting process covers production capacity relative to your order size, quality management systems including ISO certifications and in-process QC procedures, the factory’s existing client roster and product track record, physical facility inspection with documentation, and social compliance audit status (BSCI, SEDEX SMETA, or equivalent).

The 2026 tariff environment has made factory vetting and supply chain diversification more urgent than at any point since the first round of U.S.-China trade tensions in 2018 to 2019. With 77% of toys imported into the United States coming from China, elevated import tariffs have chilled production planning across the industry, with 87% of mid-size toy companies and 81% of small toy companies reporting delayed orders (The Toy Association, April 2025). For emerging brands sourcing from China, the immediate priority is to identify backup factory options in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Mexico before they are needed, not after a tariff escalation forces the issue under time pressure.

Our country-specific manufacturing guides walk through the trade-offs for each region: China, Vietnam, Mexico, and India are the four most relevant for toy and baby product brands. For a deeper look at supply chain diversification strategy, our post on transitioning manufacturing beyond China covers how to evaluate alternatives without disrupting your existing production.

The Smol case study in Section 4 illustrates exactly this scenario: when China tariffs rose, Klugonyx had already established a backup supply chain in Cambodia. That backup was not reactive. It was built during a stable period specifically to create optionality. Read the full Smol case study for the complete story.

Further resources on factory audit standards: QIMA factory audit and inspection methodology; Sedex SMETA audit framework documentation.

Within the broader Klugonyx factory network of 500-plus vetted partners worldwide, more than 250 specialize in toy and game manufacturing specifically, spanning food-grade silicone molders, plastic injection molders, soft goods factories, and electronic toy assemblers. That depth of category-specific supply chain access is what allows Klugonyx to match the right factory to the right product rather than routing every project to a general-purpose manufacturer.

5. Tooling investment: what nobody tells you before you start

Toy tooling typically runs $10,000 to $100,000 or more depending on complexity, and a production-grade mold takes six to twelve weeks to build and deliver from an overseas factory. Plan for at least one round of tool modification in both budget and timeline.

Injection-molded toy components require tooling, specifically steel or aluminum molds, before a single production unit can run. These tools are expensive, they take time to build, and they represent a capital commitment made before you have confirmed your first purchase order.

Klugonyx client experience aligns with this range: toy and game product tooling runs from approximately $10,000 to $100,000 or more depending on product complexity, materials, and the number of components required. The design decisions made before any tooling is committed are the single most powerful lever available for controlling this investment.

What emerging brands consistently underestimate is not just the cost of tooling but the lead time. A production-grade mold typically takes six to twelve weeks to build and deliver from an overseas factory. If the first samples come back with fit or function issues that require tool modification, that timeline extends. Planning for at least one round of tool modification in your timeline and budget is not pessimistic. It is realistic.

The other tooling consideration that affects product strategy is ownership. Tooling built by a factory is often treated by that factory as factory-owned unless your agreement explicitly states otherwise. Establishing clear written tooling ownership before production starts is non-negotiable.

Tooling ownership documentation is one of the core components of a well-structured tech pack. Our tech pack guide explains what this documentation should include and how to structure it before you engage a factory. For a full picture of what the engineering phase looks like, including how in-house 3D printing accelerates prototyping before tooling investment, see our engineering capabilities page.

The toy and game readiness checklist

* Requirements vary by retailer or target market. Confirm with each buyer. Sources: CPSC.gov, ASTM F963, The Toy Association, Klugonyx manufacturing experience.

Four Klugonyx client stories, selected because they represent distinct entry points into the category: a first-time founder with a homemade prototype, an experienced team building a first sensory product line, a fast-growth startup that hit a scaling crisis, and an established brand augmenting its internal team.

The case studies that follow are drawn directly from Klugonyx’s published client work. Together, they illustrate the range of challenges emerging brands face and the common thread that connects successful outcomes.

Financial figures reflect what each client has made public. In each case, the qualitative outcomes, the product recognition, and the ongoing relationships speak to the results.

“Klugonyx has held my hand through the entire process from initial design through manufacturing. They’ve supported me every step of the way to grow my product line to a seven-figure business.”Beth, Founder, Busy Baby

Busy Baby illustrates the lean team thesis more clearly than almost any other case in the Klugonyx portfolio. Beth did not hire a product designer, a mechanical engineer, a production manager, a quality specialist, and a logistics coordinator. She hired one partner that covered all of it. That operational model did not just save money. It gave her access to expertise she could not have hired individually at a stage when her company was not yet generating the revenue to support those salaries. Read the full Busy Baby case study.

The Mobi case illustrates the cost of design framework failures better than almost any other example in the baby product category. The difference between a development process that establishes the right foundational decisions at the beginning and one that discovers problems at the prototyping stage is measured in months and in capital. Klugonyx’s ability to front-load the right expertise at the right moment is what made the timeline and outcome achievable. Ten follow-on products in the same line validate the relationship. Read the full Mobi Games case study.

Smol is the most layered case study in this document because it shows what happens when the phases of product development and manufacturing are not integrated from the beginning, and what it takes to fix it. The original factory relationship, the quality problem, the compliance gap: all three trace back to decisions made before Klugonyx was involved. The cost of correcting them in time, capital, and brand risk was significant. The deeper lesson for emerging brands is not that Smol made avoidable mistakes. It is that every one of those problems has a predictable, preventable version that shows up early in the process rather than after the brand is already operational. The brands that build the right foundation at the beginning skip the remediation phase entirely. Read the full Smol case study.

MAGNA-TILES represents the third archetype this document profiles: an established brand that uses an outside partner not to build from scratch but to augment their internal team at specific project stages. Klugonyx handled the full development cycle for Downhill Duo and contributed concept work on Construction in Space without needing to own the full project. For brands at this stage, the value is speed, specialized capability, and the flexibility to scale engagement up or down project by project.

Browse all of our toy, baby, and game product work in the Klugonyx project gallery.

The three trade shows that matter most for emerging U.S. toy brands are Toy Fair, ChiTAG, and ABC Kids Expo. The two organizations worth joining are The Toy Association and ASTRA. The CPSC-accepted testing labs most brands use are Intertek, Bureau Veritas, and SGS.

Getting your product right is only part of the job. Knowing where the industry gathers, who the influential organizations are, and what compliance infrastructure looks like will save you months of orientation time and help you build the right relationships before you need them.

We also recommend our Founder’s Field Notes podcast, which features conversations with founders across the toy, baby, and consumer product space, including several of the brands featured in this white paper.

Trade shows worth attending

Industry organizations worth joining

The Toy Association

The Toy Association is the U.S. toy industry’s primary trade organization. Membership provides access to the ASTM F963 standard and compliance resources, Toy Fair exhibitor priority, industry data reports, government advocacy, and a network of industry professionals across retail, manufacturing, and design. For any brand serious about building in the U.S. toy market, Toy Association membership is not optional. It is the infrastructure. Learn more at toyassociation.org.

ASTRA (American Specialty Toy Retailing Association)

If specialty retail is any part of your channel strategy, ASTRA is the organization to know. It represents independent specialty toy retailers across the country and runs its own annual marketplace and academy event. Independent specialty retail is one of the fastest paths to initial distribution for brands that are not yet ready for mass retail compliance requirements.

Testing and compliance resources

Third-party testing for CPSC compliance and ASTM F963 certification is required for children’s products in the U.S. The major testing labs operating in this space include Intertek, Bureau Veritas, and SGS. Each operates testing facilities in Asia and the U.S. and can work with you on testing protocols before you commit to a final production run. The CPSC also publishes a complete list of accepted third-party testing laboratories on its website.

If you are unsure which compliance path applies to your specific product, our FAQs page covers the most common questions we hear from first-time founders entering regulated consumer product categories.

Klugonyx is a full-service product design, engineering, and manufacturing partner based in West Valley City, Utah. Design, engineering, manufacturing, quality assurance, and logistics operate as one team on one workflow, which is what removes the handoff gaps where most toy and game projects lose time and money.

Every challenge described in this paper has a version that is significantly cheaper to solve before production than after it. Compliance gaps discovered at the testing stage require redesigns. Factory quality problems discovered after a launch require remediation and damage control. Tooling ownership disputes discovered after a factory relationship sours are expensive and time-consuming to resolve. Supply chain concentration discovered only when tariffs rise means scrambling for alternatives under time pressure rather than choosing from pre-vetted options.

The reason those problems occur when they do is almost always the same: the design, engineering, and manufacturing phases were separated, either by different vendors, different timelines, or different teams that were not talking to each other from the beginning.

Klugonyx is built around the opposite model. That integration is not a marketing claim. It is the practical reason why a homemade prototype becomes a Shark Tank brand in four years, why a sensory toy wins a Best New Product Award in the same year it launches, and why a brand that was bleeding through quality failures can turn around and land a Target deal.

What the team covers

Since founding, Klugonyx has designed, engineered, or manufactured approximately 1,000 toy and game SKUs, spanning baby sensory products, construction and building toys, outdoor and active play, tabletop games, and family products. Browse the full portfolio at klugonyx.com/projects/toy-games.

---

Conclusion

The U.S. toy and game market grew by more than $10 billion in real terms over the last 26 years. It survived the dot-com collapse, the 2008 financial crisis, a global pandemic, and a historic post-pandemic correction. In 2025 it delivered its strongest non-pandemic growth year in more than a decade. And it now sits approximately 35% above its 2019 baseline even as it navigates a complex tariff environment in 2026.

Inside that market, the fastest-growing segments are the ones being built by lean, focused brands with strong product design, the right operational foundation, and the flexibility to move faster than incumbents. The window is wide open. But it closes fast for brands that underestimate the operational requirements of the category.

The path in is navigable. The brands that do it right do not just survive the category. They define it.

If you are building something in the toy and game space, we should talk.

---

Frequently asked questions