Jesus! That’s either nasty (if they’re selling it to kids) or demented. (If for adults) I don’t think Mattel is getting ideas from A&F, more like Fredericks of Hollywood.
“Golden hoop earrings and high heels complete this simple but elegant ensemble, perfect for dress-and-play fun!”
they’ve finally done it. They’ve made Skanger Barbie. (Irish Dopers will know :))
Actually, this doesn’t bother me nearly as much as Sweet Treats Barbie, who come with a short fluffy pink skirt, the obligatory pink heels, a pink and white apron, and her own mixer and baking supplies. I mean, this WAS being marketed to kids. After 30 years of the women’s movement, Mattel decides that Barbie (being bored with such occupations as corporate raiding, medicine, and space travel) needs to show kids that it’s important to look pretty while baking cookies for your man.
(insert horrible retching and gagging noises here)
Ya got me! I’ve been away from the US for a while but I really thought they sold things like boots and flannel shirts. Damn! I feel like Rip Van Winkle or something!:o
Oh, yeah, absolutely, I agree with the Cat Lady that Sweet Treats Barbie was MUCH more pernicious than Lingerie Barbie. Really. It’s depressing if you think about it, that Veterinarian Barbie and Paleontologist Barbie spend only a few nanoseconds on the ToysRUs shelf before they’re whisked away by Mattel Marketing.
This season’s token “We Girls Can Do Anything!” offerings are Dog Groomer Barbie and Art Teacher Barbie, buried under an avalanche of Salon Surprise Barbies and Fashion Photo Barbies and Travel In Style Barbies and Mermaid Barbies and Rapunzel Barbies.
Actually, Mattel is probably marketing this to their adult collectors. They always produce expensive versions of Barbie each year, anything from Barbie as a classic film star, Barbie in gowns that adult designers create for her (I think Bob Mackie was one of them), and so forth. They’re making pricey limited editions that will get put in a glass case in some adult’s house, rather than the type that a little girl would have in a shoebox under her bed. And yes, even FAO Schwartz sells those collector’s editions; I’ve seen them on sale there.
Sorry, I did notice that, but didn’t address it fully. What I’m saying is that expensive Barbies in less-than-kid-friendly costumes certainly are nothing new. I don’t know if the ad/packaging tactics were similar on the other dolls - perhaps Mattel tries to stick to similar Barbie marketing to appeal to the collector’s sense of “authenticity” or something.
It’s twisted, but other than establishing if that bit of copy is different from previous promotions, it’s right in line with what Mattel’s been doing.
I actually own several dolls in this line. They are by no means at all a ‘play’ doll (what Mattel refers to as ‘pink box’.) This is a high-end collector’s line. The doll itself would make a very poor toy - it’s made out of a heavy material called ‘Silkstone’ that feels like porcelain, they’re only minimally jointed, and they’re not sold in places parents normally buy toys for kids. You’re not going to find them on the aisle at Target or Toys R Us. They’re at FAO because FAO is, in many ways, just as much of a ‘toy collectibles’ store as it is a toy store for kids, and they’re sold in that part of the FAO dolls section that sells collectible dolls. FAO segregates the pink box Barbies in another area.
As for Mattel’s advertising copy - well, collectors dress and undress their dolls, too. There are seperate outfit packages - VERY high fashion and very expensive - that are sold particularly for this collector’s line. And this line is also sold as part of a set that includes two or three outfits and the lingerie doll.
Some serious Barbie collectors see being able to play with and dress and undress the dolls as part of the fun. That’s the niche adult market Mattel is marketing this doll to. There’s even a column in the monthly Barbie collector’s magazine (Barbie Bazaar, on the rack at Barnes and Noble) about doing just that.
As a small-scale Barbie collector, I can tell you that I was far more bothered by the ‘Butterfly Tattoo Barbie’ that came out a few years ago than I am by this - and that one WAS marketed to children in the pink box aisle.
BTW, the first doll in the Lingerie Barbie line came out some three years ago. What took y’all so long?
I don’t mean to drag this thread off-topic, but has there ever been a study to show how influential Barbie dolls are? I had one back in the mid-60s, and despite her bouffant hair, satin wedding gown, and other girly-girl accessories, I never aspired to grow up to be like Barbie. Nor did my brother want to be GI Joe, with or without Kung-Fu grip.
Are children incapable of recognizing toys as being merely playthings and not life-directing forces??
You’re damn right I’m rolling in my grave! That son of a bitch Abercrombie always got top billing! I don’t care if he founded it! Just once, I’d like someone to refer to “Fitch clothing!”
Ezra Fitch
Small complaint: The page that the OP links to forces me to take some demographic survey before I can continue. Although I am wearing my tinfoil hat, I fear that the Black Helicopters will arrive soon.