Once girls put aside their Barbie dolls, which happens at about age 6, Mattel doesn’t have a whole lot to offer them. Girls may graduate to the company’s American Girl line, but that will interest them only another year or two.

So Mattel’s big new assault on the tween girl market with its Monster High line is a good strategy. (See story on page 1.)

However, I can’t help but wonder about the company’s tactics. The decision to offer Monster High books, webisodes, apparel and Halloween costumes seems fine. But one of the core products will be a line of dolls. Really? For 8- to 12-year-olds?

I did a little market research last week. I asked my 9-year-old daughter, Katie, to play around on the Monster High website and then tell me what she thought. I didn’t tell her why. After a while, she announced, “Not bad.”

Would she buy Monster High clothing? “Yeah, maybe.” Books? “Definitely the books,” she nodded. How about a Monster High Halloween costume? Her face brightened. “Yes!”

And dolls? Would she buy the line of dolls? She looked at me as if I hurt her feelings. “I’m a little too old for dolls,” she said, explaining an obvious reality to a slow-witted dad.

And when I told her that the Monster High movie won’t come out for at least a year or so, she seemed disappointed, confused even. You could see in her expression the question, “Why would they wait so long?”

On the one hand, I presume Mattel has done a good deal of expensive research and knows what it’s doing. But on the other, I have to believe that if it wants to reach tween girls with Monster High, Mattel should speed up the movie and seriously downplay the dolls. I mean, that just seems like another obvious reality. In fact, it may be a fatal error if the dolls are heavily promoted and too closely associated with the rest of the line.

And, yes, I admit that my market research was thin and my focus group was extremely small. But I can tell you that my daughter is a typical early tween girl. She put aside her Barbies at age 6, and she won’t be buying Monster High dolls.

• • •

It was painful to see the town of Downey get stiffed by Tesla. After months of good-faith but drawnout negotiations, the-then mayor of Downey said a deal was imminent. That was six months ago.

Finally, just as a deal with Downey was about to be signed, Tesla made its shocking announcement May 20 that it would put its electric car plant in Northern California and not in the Los Angeles County city. Tesla got a better deal up there at the last moment.

Former Downey Mayor Mario Guerra said he’d been “stabbed in the back.”

Unfortunately, more cities and burgs across California can expect to be similarly backstabbed. That’s because California, with its heavy taxes and rules, excels at chasing away companies. The few that are willing to move in become prized, so they can expect to be wooed. And if those companies are, like Tesla, much desired clean-energy manufacturing firms, well, they can talk like Scarlett O’Hara at a dance. “The line to court me starts way back there, boys.”

So companies have the incentive to hold out and wait for a better deal. Cities and towns will be played off against each other, forced to bribe the companies with taxpayers’ money.

In this kind of corrosive environment, more cities will be backstabbed. And taxpayers, too.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].