Utopian sentimentality, Dichter strove to improve not the world but his clients' sales. If suffering made people
reach for their checkbooks, why alleviate it?
By 1958, Dichter was so besieged with work that he relegated much of it to his staff. The Mattel project, however, he kept
for himself. Toys were new to him, something no motivational researcher had ever investigated before. They were a pretext
to expound a whole philosophy of play. Its purpose, he felt, was to relieve tension, to maintain children's "psycho-economic
equilibrium" in the face of growing knowledge, growing bodies, and growing pressure from the adult world.
He investigated four types of toys—dolls, guns, holsters, and rockets— and based his findings on interviews with 23 fathers,
45 mothers, and 357 children plucked from a variety of social classes. The children included 191 girls and 166 boys. Dichter's
gun-related observations are fraught with Freudian overtones—big guns are like big penises—or in the case of three-to four-year-olds,
"The big long gun satisfies his need for power." But in an era characterized by exaggerated gender roles, he courageously
advocated androgynous play: "Adults frown upon doll play on the part of little boys as 'sissy' behavior. In actuality, this
type of play is emotionally as important for little boys as for little girls."
It is in his Barbie-doll inquiry, however, that his brilliance as a tactician comes forward. To read the Barbie study is to
understand why he took Madison Avenue by storm. He asks blunt questions, gets blunt answers, then hatches a devilish scheme
to make the bad news work to his client's advantage.
In his initial bid to Mattel, Dichter recommended probing Barbie's dark side to determine whether it should be played up or
down. Is Barbie "a nice kid, friendly and loved by everyone, or is she vain and selfish, maybe even cheap? Does she have good
taste or is she a little too flashy?" Could the doll be used to play out a child's rebellion against her parents, and if so,
"should the wardrobe be sophisticated, even wicked?" He also suggested studying "the gift psychology of the adult." Is Barbie
a conversation piece, a present "that will 'buy' the affection of the recipient?" Even more blunt, is Barbie a homewrecker?
"Are men afraid of their wives' taunts should they bring home a 'sexy' doll?"
Dichter's answers told Mattel what it had perhaps suspected already. Barbie probably would "buy" the affection of a child;
kids loved her. Mothers, by contrast, hated her. The report quotes a housewife and mother of three:
I know little girls want dolls with high heels but I object to that sexy costume. (POINTING TO SHEER PINK NEGLIGEE) I wouldn't walk around the house like that. I don't like that influence on my little girl. If only they would let children remain young a little longer . . . It's hard enough to raise a lady these days without undue moral pressures.
SAID THE MOTHER OF AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD:
(MRS. B. SEEMED VERY MUCH EMBARASSED WHEN SHE LOOKED AT THE DOLL, ACTUALLY BLUSHING) One thing . . . my daughter would be fascinated. She loves dolls with figures. I don't think I would buy this for that reason. It has too much of a figure. (SHE STARED AT THE DOLL FOR A LONG TIME.) . . . I'm sure would like to have one, but I wouldn't buy it. All these kids talk about is how the teachers jiggle. I think that would be all she would observe . . . . Maybe the bride doll is O.K., but not the one with the sweater.
ADDED THE FIRST MOTHER:
I'd call them "daddy dolls" — they are so sexy. They could be a cute decoration for a mans bar.
Eight- to thirteen-year-olds, however, were instantly hooked, though some had reservations. "The face looks snobbish," said
one. "I think they call these Barbie because they are so sharp," said another. And a third used Barbie to reveal her ambivalence
about the role of feminine artifice in snaring a mate: "I would like her better if there was
reach for their checkbooks, why alleviate it?
By 1958, Dichter was so besieged with work that he relegated much of it to his staff. The Mattel project, however, he kept
for himself. Toys were new to him, something no motivational researcher had ever investigated before. They were a pretext
to expound a whole philosophy of play. Its purpose, he felt, was to relieve tension, to maintain children's "psycho-economic
equilibrium" in the face of growing knowledge, growing bodies, and growing pressure from the adult world.
He investigated four types of toys—dolls, guns, holsters, and rockets— and based his findings on interviews with 23 fathers,
45 mothers, and 357 children plucked from a variety of social classes. The children included 191 girls and 166 boys. Dichter's
gun-related observations are fraught with Freudian overtones—big guns are like big penises—or in the case of three-to four-year-olds,
"The big long gun satisfies his need for power." But in an era characterized by exaggerated gender roles, he courageously
advocated androgynous play: "Adults frown upon doll play on the part of little boys as 'sissy' behavior. In actuality, this
type of play is emotionally as important for little boys as for little girls."
It is in his Barbie-doll inquiry, however, that his brilliance as a tactician comes forward. To read the Barbie study is to
understand why he took Madison Avenue by storm. He asks blunt questions, gets blunt answers, then hatches a devilish scheme
to make the bad news work to his client's advantage.
In his initial bid to Mattel, Dichter recommended probing Barbie's dark side to determine whether it should be played up or
down. Is Barbie "a nice kid, friendly and loved by everyone, or is she vain and selfish, maybe even cheap? Does she have good
taste or is she a little too flashy?" Could the doll be used to play out a child's rebellion against her parents, and if so,
"should the wardrobe be sophisticated, even wicked?" He also suggested studying "the gift psychology of the adult." Is Barbie
a conversation piece, a present "that will 'buy' the affection of the recipient?" Even more blunt, is Barbie a homewrecker?
"Are men afraid of their wives' taunts should they bring home a 'sexy' doll?"
Dichter's answers told Mattel what it had perhaps suspected already. Barbie probably would "buy" the affection of a child;
kids loved her. Mothers, by contrast, hated her. The report quotes a housewife and mother of three:
I know little girls want dolls with high heels but I object to that sexy costume. (POINTING TO SHEER PINK NEGLIGEE) I wouldn't walk around the house like that. I don't like that influence on my little girl. If only they would let children remain young a little longer . . . It's hard enough to raise a lady these days without undue moral pressures.
SAID THE MOTHER OF AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD:
(MRS. B. SEEMED VERY MUCH EMBARASSED WHEN SHE LOOKED AT THE DOLL, ACTUALLY BLUSHING) One thing . . . my daughter would be fascinated. She loves dolls with figures. I don't think I would buy this for that reason. It has too much of a figure. (SHE STARED AT THE DOLL FOR A LONG TIME.) . . . I'm sure would like to have one, but I wouldn't buy it. All these kids talk about is how the teachers jiggle. I think that would be all she would observe . . . . Maybe the bride doll is O.K., but not the one with the sweater.
ADDED THE FIRST MOTHER:
I'd call them "daddy dolls" — they are so sexy. They could be a cute decoration for a mans bar.
Eight- to thirteen-year-olds, however, were instantly hooked, though some had reservations. "The face looks snobbish," said
one. "I think they call these Barbie because they are so sharp," said another. And a third used Barbie to reveal her ambivalence
about the role of feminine artifice in snaring a mate: "I would like her better if there was
Similar Books
