INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9201666 Toys, cbildreHj and the toy industry in a culture of consumption, 1890—1991. (Volumes I and II) Greenfield, Lawrence Frederic, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1991 Copyright ©1991 by Greenfield, Lawrence Frederic. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd- Ann Aibor, MI 48106 TOYS, CHILDREN, AND THE TOY INDUSTRY IN A CULTURE OF CONSUMPTION, 1890-1991 VOLUME I A DISSERTATION Presented in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lawrence Frederic Greenfield, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1991 Dissertation Committee: Approved by U.C. Burnham M.G. Blackford ( / ^ - — X Adviser S.M. Hartmann Department of History Copywrite by Lawrence Frederic Greenfield 1991 To My Parents, Lenny and Gloria Greenfield, Who Have Shown Me the Extraordinary Nature of Ordinary People 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the many individuals who helped to make this project possible. I am particularly indebted to John C. Burnham, my dissertation adviser. Through his example, he has taught me the meaning of scholarship and professionalism. I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Mansel Blackford and Susan Hartmann, who read my work carefully and provided invaluable suggestions and support. I am indebted to Paul Boyer, under whom this project first took shape at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst. I wish also to express my appreciation to W. Bernard Carlson and Austin Kerr, who read and commented upon earlier parts of this study. Without my friends and graduate student collègues, this project would never have been completed. I am especially indebted to Rich and Jane Appel and Bill O'Donnell, who opened their homes to me and made several research trips not only possible, but also most enjoyable. Finally, I would like to thank Janice Gulker and Marjorie Haffner for computer help given generously and cheerfully. Ill VITAE March 11, 1957 ......................Born— Newark, New Jersey 1979 ................................. B.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 1980-8 1 ............................... Teaching Assistant, Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1981-1983, 1985-1987 ............... Teaching Assistant, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1982 ................................. M.A. , Department of History, The Ohio States University, Columbus, Ohio 1988-1991 ........................... Graduate Administrative Associate, University College, The Ohio States University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field; History Fields of Study: U.S. Since 1877 U.S. Before 1877 Modern Japan IV TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................ iii VITAE.......................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. THE ERA OF THE TRADITIONAL TOY SHOP, 1890-1915 . 21 The Myth of the Traditional Toymaker and Toy S h o p ................................... 22 The Realities of Toy Manufacturing .......... 25 The Realities of the Shopkeeper's Market . 28 Toy Shop Merchandising ........................32 The Factory System and Toy Mass Production . 41 Mechanization and Domestic Toy Production . .44 Reorganizing the Manufacturing Process . 47 Designing Toys for a Mass Market .............51 The Demise of the Traditional Toy Shop. .58 Significance of the Traditional Toy Shop . 61 The Legend of the Traditional Toy Shop . 66 C o n c l u s i o n ..................................... 67 II. BUILDING STORE LOYALTY AND SALES THROUGH .... 78 PERSONALITY, 1890-1919 Department Stores Begin Selling Toys .... 80 Old and New Barriers to Toy Selling ......... 84 Selling Toys Directly to Adults ..............85 Selling Toys Directly To Children............100 Selling Toys to Adults through Children. .112 The Limits of Department Store Merchandising........................ .120 C o n c l u s i o n ................................... 126 III. EXPANDING THE MARKET THROUGH CATALOGUE ......... 134 MERCHANDISING AND DIME STORES, 1912-1918 Development of Catalogue Retailing .... 135 Ingress of the Dime S t o r e .................. 148 C o n c l u s i o n ................................... 164 IV. PRINT ADVERTSING AND THE HOMOGENIZATION . .170 OF THE TOY MARKET, 1913-1918 Informational Advertsing and the Advent of Brand-name Publicity ................ 172 Targeting Adults Directly By Using Reason Why Advertising .................. 180 Targeting Children Directly Using Reason Why Advertising .................. 191 Advertising Indirectly to Adults Through C h i l d r e n .................................. 209 World War I .................................. 216 C o n c l u s i o n ................................... 222 V. THE ASCENDANCY OF THE DOMESTIC TOY INDUSTRY, . .233 1919-1925 Readjustment and Postwar Prosperity . .234 D e p r e s s i o n ................................... 240 Precursors to Fashion ....................... 256 Mass Production and Toy marketing ......... 276 C o n c l u s i o n ................................... 291 VI. THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOY FASHION, 1927-1938 . 305 Developing Fashion ........................ 3 07 The Great Depression ...................... 323 Toy Industry Recovery Efforts .............. 332 C o n c l u s i o n ................................... 370 VI INTRODUCTION Most cultural historians and many other writers have acknowledged the fact that sometime before the beginning of the twentieth century— precisely when remains unknown— a culture of consumption began to replace a more traditional culture of production. This work is about the way in which an industry that was built around children, the toy industry, reflected and shaped the developing culture of consumption. Americans who were socialized into each of the two cultures differed markedly in their perceptions. Those socialized into a culture of production conceived of their world as one of scarcity. As a result, these individuals internalized an ethic based upon hard work and self-denial. As such, they esteemed "character," moral rectitude, and considerable self-denial as the measure of the individual. They were, therefore, what sociologist David Riesman has termed "inner directed," relying upon conscience for their moral compass. Conversely, proponents of the consumer culture pictured the world as one of abundance. They internalized an ethic different from their predecessors', — 1 — 2 one based upon leisure and immediate self-gratification. Such supporters of the consumer culture stressed the importance of "personality," the quality of being liked or disliked by others, as the measure of a man or woman. As such, the members of the consumer culture became "other directed," looking to their associates for guidance.^ Although scholars have agreed upon the precepts of the two cultures and the fact that over time a producer culture evolved into a consumer culture, investigators have continued to disagree somewhat on the forces in the newer culture that made for change. Historians have found the question of specific agency, in particular, difficult to answer. Did the consumer culture result from the machinations or manipulations of an elite group of businesspeople, they have asked, or did the culture derive from the actions of members of the buying public? What role, in other words, did consuming Americans play in creating the consumer culture? Contentions about who led the coming of the consumer culture have spanned several historiographic schools. David Potter and Daniel J. Boorstin, both so-called "consensus historians," attribute the consumer culture to the plotting and manipulating of entrepreneurs and advertising experts. More recently, in the wake of the "new social history," other writers have continued in a similar v e i n .2 In the introduction to The Culture of Consumption (1983),