Mattel’s homeless “American Girl” doll causes an outcry

The Mattel-owned American Girl brand has launched a new doll in its range, but unlike the bland blondes of the Barbies of yesteryear, this one has a twist: “Gwen” is “homeless”. (And she costs $95.) Needless to say, the blogosphere has gone crazy about it.

So just who is “Gwen”? Each doll in the American Girl range has its own character and back story; in Gwen’s case, she lives in a shelter with her family. She wears a simple cotton dress and has honey-coloured hair falling around her shoulders (see pic below). The book that comes with Gwen explains that her home fell under foreclosure, her dad abandoned her family and then she and her mother are forced to sleep in their car.

So is this an appalling, immoral idea?

First, think about this from Mattel’s point of view. The idea of a homeless doll is not that bad in itself. Consider this:

1. The idea of home foreclosure has now become more real for Americans than at any time during the previous 15 years. So this is a genuine socially important subject that real children may become acquainted with. Since the way children learn tends to be through play, it stands to reason that a doll will help bring these issues to interested kids.

2. The homeless are marginalised from society. The only way to stop people being marginalised is to raise their profile within mainstream society. By making middle-class kids aware of the issues of being homeless, Mattel is helping educate American society.

3. Gwen can be used as a “teaching tool” in schools and nurseries to introduce children en masse to the topic of homelessness in an accessible way, using something they understand (dolls). Otherwise it is pretty difficult for teachers to raise these issues in young classrooms. The issues of parental abandonment in Gwen’s story gives teachers a way in to difficult topics about modern families too.

4. It’s nothing new. Some commentators on stories about Gwen point out that they played back in the 1960s with a doll called Poor Pitiful Pearl (see comments at the end of the article). She came in rags, was “adopted” by the child and then brought back to full health and joy once placed with a family. For them, this is an old idea revisited.

So why is it causing such outcry?

1. The dolls don’t do anything above making Mattel money. While it might be teaching young kids that homelessness is a real issue in society, it doesn’t do anything to actively change that. No percentage of the product sales goes to homeless charities. The company simply stands to make profit from a homeless doll; it doesn’t stand to make a more important social improvement than that. You would expect that a brand introducing a character like Gwen would associate itself with a cause or charity to give her greater impact.

2.  The price tag ($95) is enormous and seems especially incongrous when selling a product with a story all about being so poor that the doll can’t even afford a roof over her head. It moves the business away from being seen as a valuable educator of children to making a large profit from a very sensitive and sad topic.

Time Magazine has also – in honour of Gwen – compiled a brilliant list of the ‘top 10 most dubious toys’. What’s your view? Horrendous initiative or thoughtful new product development?