This will be a short one. Just a quick observation from my travel journal that may, or may not, be worth blogging about...
En route to Chicago I pick up the Duty Free magazine in my seat pocket and page through for kicks. And then I stop, shocked, at an ad for Barbie 4--a fragrance for girls. Here is, and I'm not embellishing this at all, a direct quote from the ad:
"The best selection of fragrances for all those children who wish to form their own personality; to feel and discover a beautiful smell in their tender skin."
Does anyone else find this ad slightly creepy? Why is it okay to talk about the tender skin of children in a perfume ad? But let's say I am babysitting and mention that someone's toddler has tender skin; I would be promptly fired (and probably sent down to police headquarters for questioning), right?
Also, I'm impressed by Mattel's progressive wording in the ad. Note how they leave it gender neutral, in case there are any small boys who like to add notes of "berries & candy apples" to his delicate epidermis.
When did we start marketing perfume to children? I thought babies (and frankly, children are just large babies) were supposed to smell naturally of clouds and giggles? Why must we ad the sticky sweet scent of chemically created liquids? Why? Also, who spends forty bucks so your little one can "form her/his own personality" in one simple spritz? Seems like cutting corners in the child development department.
Side note, when Googling "baby + perfume" a distressing number of alternatives to the Barbie 4 come up. Apparently, there is an actual baby perfume market out there. Shit. I'm not sure if Obama can save us after all...
You have your selection of the kiddie (and kitty) brand branching out to perfume...
As well as the more designer labels having their go at little tyke fragrances...
But note to those new to this burgeoning market: do not confuse baby perfume with Baby Phat perfume. Their ad seems to try to draw the line pretty clearly...