Second, it takes no work at all to ignore someone's work, to say it's terrible, or to praise it unduly. It is intellectually and morally dishonest. I expect better. So should we all.
I just don't see much in the way of research or thought in this article to address. (Or proofreading, but that's neither here nor there.) He posts a graph that says revenues have declined a bit in the last couple of years, which also shows they are significantly higher than they were pre-2008. Heck, the tail end of the graph suggests to me that the decline may already be leveling off. He notes that Star Wars stuff sells (giving an example of a line that's probably a bit too new to really judge). That seems to be the extent of his "research".
The rest of it is griping about a TV show that doesn't even have to do with Hasbro, and a wishlist for not only live-action TF and Joe shows but one and maybe two cel-animated shows specifically catering to thirtysomethings (with an apparent lack of knowledge as to how much they already do that in the toy line -- I just ordered Skids for crying out loud), even suggesting a (poor, uncatchy and backwards-looking) working title for one such show. I don't think I'm being overly dismissive by not paying him much attention.
To people who were pleased with Transformers Prime... I'm sorry. Just because there is precedent for humans understanding a beeping robot and an apparent financial gap such that the writers can't afford voice actors
Oh, the good old "Bumblebee beeps because they're too cheap to pay a voice actor" canard. (Have the rules changed since the 80s, when they could get three characters for the price of one? Seems to me if they wanted Bee to talk they could just say, "Hey Welker, do the Scooter voice" and be done with it.)