According to Felicia Hendrix, an analyst at Barclays, part of the reason for
slumping Barbie sales is that toy buyers are increasingly attracted to Mattel’s
other offerings like the American Girl Doll and the Monster High Dolls — a line
of part-human, part-monster teens launched three years ago. Of course, this
raises the question: Why, after more than 50 years of massive popularity, are
little girls turning their backs on Barbie?
One possible explanation is body image. Traditionally, Barbie has been
criticized for
her too-thin frame, heavy makeup, and impossibly large cup-size, and some
parents may now be deciding to give their little girls dolls that are, shall we
say, a bit more flawed. Mary Shearman, a PhD candidate in gender, sexuality and
women’s studies Simon Fraser University, speculated in an article in the
Globe
and Mail that Mattel may find themselves leaning on their non-Barbie dolls
more and more as parents and children seek out more relatable dolls:
“There was a sense that you wanted to expose little girls to role models that
were a little more diverse and not so stereotypical, so they tried to make
Barbie active and gave her all kinds of activities to do and tried to make her
more interesting than a beauty queen.”
Parents have reason to be anxious. In a 2006 study at the University of
Sussex, researchers compared the effects of exposing five-to-eight-year-old
girls to images of Barbie versus images of Emme — a full-figured doll that has
been endorsed by the American Dietetic Association to help promote positive body
image. Those girls exposed to Barbie reported lower body esteem and a greater
desire to be thin. The study concluded, “Early exposure to dolls epitomizing an
unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls’ body image, which would
contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycling.”
So what are the alternatives to Barbie? American Girl dolls look a lot more
like, well, girls. They’re chubby-cheeked, freckled, and breast-less. But each
doll costs over $100 with the average American Girl Doll owner spending over
$500 per doll on accessories — a much steeper price tag than Barbie.
That leaves the wildly-popular Monster High dolls. Mattel asserts that they
convey a healthy message to growing girls. “The message about the brand is
really to celebrate your own freaky flaws, especially as
bullying has become such a hot
topic,” Cathy Cline, Mattel’s vice president of marketing, told NPR. The dolls
thus tap into the well-established tween market of embracing one’s inner freak
(see:
Lady Gaga,
Glee, and
Twilight), and, if
skyrocketing sales are any indication, parents are on-board with the
message.
While the Monster High message about self empowerment might assuage parents
concerns, the Monster High dolls still sport a ridiculously small body frame. In
fact, the popular Draculara may be even thinner than Barbie—
the
dolls arms are so skinny that you have to take off their hands to get their
clothes on.
Adriana Valez, a staff writer for the blog Stir by CafeMom and a mom herself,
points out, “The dolls don’t come in all different shapes and sizes — they’re
all uniformly thin. So I love the idea that girls can have flaws, but I think
we’re seeing some prescribed notions of what kinds of flaws are cool — crazy
Frankenstein’s monster stitches and funky skin and eye color, certainly. Crazy
clothes, for sure. But we’re not seeing the kinds of flaws girls’ typically feel
badly about, or that others will bully them over: body fat, prominent nose,
physical disabilities, etc.”
In the end, Mattel’s continuing production of unrealistically shaped dolls
may not matter. Despite declining sales, Barbie is still the most widely sold
doll in the world. As Hendrix says, “The Barbie formula has always worked. Every
three-year-old girl in the world wants a Barbie doll.” While the new trend may
be towards “flawed” dolls, it may be premature to predict the end of Barbie, or
the rapid expansion of doll waistlines.
In fact, Valez says she would still purchase the Monster High dolls for a
child, despite her concerns about their thinness. At least, Valez points out,
the Monster High dolls are better than Barbie — they’re a step in the right
direction. “A doll that doesn’t look like she’s trying to be an ideal woman is
open to all kind of narrative possibilities. And isn’t that what we want our
girls to do—to imagine all sorts of possibilities for their own
lives?”
3 comments:
I have an observation to make about Barbie... as a former little girl who saved weekly allowances to buy my first Barbie in 1961.. the dolls and their fashions have gone through a lot of quality changes, most of which have been negative. Most of the clothing, once reasonably well made and designed, is now quite poorly made and designed. One must also note that for little girls, dolls are a social experience. A child will pay alone with her or his dolls. But play in groups allows an enriched experience and children will tend to want dolls that fit in the what their play group is using.
Excellent point. Which makes the transformation as described by the article all the more interesting. It suggests that the changes you identify are shared by a much broader market and one in which perceptions about what is socially acceptable has shifted from whatever the original Barbie vision may have been.
Japji Sahib Path PDF
Post a Comment