In a sign of the times, the article in the url below reports Mattel's decision to launch a gender-neutral doll:
"Mattel is a 74-year-old company slowly taking on Gen-Z values. The maker of Barbie and Hot Wheels has announced the release of Creatable World, its first series of gender-neutral dolls."
This reminded me of the department store, John Lewis,' decision in the U.K. a couple of years ago to remove gender specific labels from its children's clothes sections (see here). Clearly, Mattel had similar concerns in mind:
"The dolls differ from Mattel's gendered Barbie and GI Joe dolls in subtle but significant ways. The dolls are a blank slate. No broad shoulders, no full hips, no long lashes. Children of any gender identification are encouraged to play with them."
The article reports this is a recent trend in toys and other children's games, evolving to reflect the contemporary expectations of consumers. The goal for the dolls is for them to be "relatable, rather than aspirational":
"Toy companies are vigorously retooling their products to align with advancements in representation, inclusion and diversity that Gen-Z children – not their millennial parents – are largely responsible for. … Just this month, numerous conversation-starting toys and board games have come out. Hasbro released a gender-swapped version of Monopoly entitled Ms Monopoly, where women players earn more than men."
Of course, it hasn't all been plain sailing:
"Mattel released a slew of culturally diverse Barbies (including a "Día de los Muertos Barbie" that garnered accusations of cultural appropriation)."
As critics note, there is a fine line between reflecting the values of the societies in which the firm is based and trying to profit from social topics that may be recently formed and, as such, still raw for many:
"The response hasn't been unanimously positive. Hasbro and Mattel have been accused of attempting to profit off culture wars."
On the other hand:
"Mattel's gender-neutral doll has won over some in the LGBTQ community. 'So many children and parents never saw themselves represented in toys and dolls, but this new line raises the bar for inclusion thanks to input from parents, physicians and children themselves,' the LGBT advocacy group Glaad wrote on Twitter."
What I did find funny, however, is the pains to which Mattel went to stress that this was not a political decision:
"'We're not in the business of politics,' Mattel's president told Time Magazine, 'and we respect the decision any parent makes around how they raise their kids. Our job is to stimulate imaginations. Our toys are ultimately canvases for cultural conversation, but it's your conversation, not ours; your opinion, not ours.'"
In other words, while engaging in the "culture wars," no doubt primarily for profit (no problem there if the firm is creating value for its stakeholders), the firm goes out of its way to say that the decision was apolitical. So, what are we to believe – that the firm made a random decision without any sensitivity to the broader cultural discussion? Why didn't the company simply embrace a capitalist argument – that it is sensitive to the needs and evolving expectations of its stakeholders and responded accordingly? In other words, Mattel has evaluated the evolving social discussion and it picked a side. How can it not be political? But, equally, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if Mattel knows its stakeholders well, it is the recipe for success in the marketplace.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
'It was time': Maker of Barbie launches line of gender-neutral dolls
By Andre Wheeler
September 25, 2019
The Guardian
