#retailing

Well, there was a war going on in the early 1940s. In fact, American and British planes had just been shot down in Germany and off the Alaskan coast. But this shopkeeper on 42nd St. had another type of war in mind when he put this sign up in his window.

When the news broke a couple of weeks ago that Hasbro was rendering its popular Potato Head line gender-neutral, you would have thought that Coca Cola were killing its flagship product again. Social media exploded with howls of protest, so much so that Hasbro actually walked it back and decided to just leave things the way they are.

But now an entire state has decided to throw its androgynous hat in the ring of social controversy with proposed legislation that would require retailers to be at least partially gender-neutral when it comes to kids’ products. I can only imagine the backlash if someone were ever to introduce such legislation in Texas, and I can likewise imagine many of my fellow Texans saying they are not surprised at all that California, typically a leader in legislating many new ideas, is considering this.

The bill does not include clothing, only toys and other items that are marketed toward kids. Parents can thus direct their progeny to clearly defined clothing departments just like they have always done, but when it comes to action figures and dolls, plan on finding Barbie and G.I. Joe sharing the same shelf.

I don’t have any problem with this in principle, as I do not see play and other activities as being gender-based. On the other hand, I don’t care for any governing body telling retailers how they can shelve their products. What a parent buys for their child is truly their business, and maybe having clearly demarcated departments just makes things easier.

I don’t, though, have issues with gender-blurring when it comes to toys. If a girl wants to hurl a football, or a boy wants to play with a Easy-Bake Oven, it’s fine. Having raised two daughters, I always encouraged them to pick out what they wanted, not what I might suggest. At the same time, though, it was always obvious when we were entering the girl aisle or the boy aisle, but they were free to pick the aisle.

Which leads me to my point: This bill, if passed, probably won’t have much of an impact, because children and parents alike receive cues from multiple sources. For example, if you find yourself in a sea of bright pink or pastel-colored packages, you know you are wading through girls toys. Dark primary colors, of course, are for boy products. If California doesn’t also regulate manufacturers, this bill will have as much bite as a toothless gender-neutral person.

Further complicating matters is that advertising can implicitly send messages without ever saying a word. Ads are not included in this bill, nor are other media-related platforms, such as movies and television shows.

In other words, by the time the product lands on a retailer’s shelf, messages about the target market have already been sent in a variety of places, and it probably won’t matter if G.I. Joe and Barbie get to hang out together. Your child already knows what is culturally acceptable, and your child probably also has a good idea of what they want for playthings, regardless of color-coding and tacit messages.

I mean no offense to the LGBTQ community when I say that this bill is misguided, will cause heartache for retailers, and do little or nothing to change what the bill’s co-authors think is a grievous social problem. Parents, let your kids grow up to be whomever they please.

Lighten up, California. These are just toys.

Dr “Toys In The Attic“ Gerlich

Retail notes from yesterday! We are officially done with the material - now all that’s left is the final project deliverable and the final exam :)

Sending positive vibes to those studying for midterms and finals!! 🙂🙂🙂

This past July, the Apple Piazza Liberty opened in Milan. Above is a photo from the opening via Apple. There’s a band playing in the middle of the piazza.

The store is central to Apple’s vision of transforming its retail locations into “town squares.” And in this case, the store is quite literally an Italian piazza.

There’s a lot that is interesting about this store and this strategic move, as well as what this could signal about the future retail. (Curbed discusses that here.)

The urbanists who read this blog will likely lament the privatization of public space. Because at the end of the day, it is a gray area. Can I hang out an Apple Town Square all day and just read a book?

But at the same time, this is not necessarily a new idea. From the very beginning, the modern shopping mall was intended to be a new kind of town square. Or at least that’s how Victor Gruen saw it.

However, what is perhaps new is this appropriation of public spaces for the purposes of what is arguably a new kind of retailing experience -- one that almost feels paradoxical. 

In the case of Apple Piazza Liberty, as well as in some of its other town squares, the actual retailing space is mostly hidden. Here it is underground. (How much to rent the basement?)

And yet, Apple’s presence feels monumental and almost sublime. Glass box, waterfall, and subtle Apple logo sitting in the middle of a beautiful Milanese piazza.

What a statement.