On toys
January 31st, 2008 | by Paul |One problem with writing a blog on anticonsumerism is that there are certain non-essential consumer items that I couldn’t imagine life without.
I’m not talking about iPhones or about Starbucks coffee or designer clothes (Blain’s Farm and Fleet is designer, right?). I’m talking about toys.
As a child, I was the proud owner of, if I remember correctly, 27 zillion Hot Wheels and Matchbox cars. So there was a part of me that was sort of happy that Mattel, the maker of both Hot Wheels and Matchbox, had a very good fiscal year. Here’s a Los Angeles Business Journal article on it and here’s one from SmartMoney.com.
Net sales were $2.19 billion in the last quarter, according to the LA article. Unfortunately, however, some of those sales were due to Barbie, American Girl and Polly Pocket products. You know, icky girl stuff.
So here’s an interesting question: Can a person be against rampant consumerism when his fond childhood memories include Legos, Matchbox cars, infinite plastic dinosaurs and other toys? Alternately, why are adult toys such as the iPhone seen as consumer hooey (as in this cartoon) but kid toys given a pass?
Toys are perceived need (”Mommy, I’ve got to have it”), media hype (”Coming up at 10: What are the new, hot toys this Christmas”), planned obsolescence (”Ooh, this Batman has a new cape”) and all sorts of other consumerist horror, but it doesn’t bother me that much. I wonder why.
I’ll be thinking about that as I call my parents to apologize for all the money they ended up spending on Transformers.