Plus sized Barbie doll

[jimnyc]

And now another example of people trying to tell others how to run their business. Now the fatties are going to request that Mattel makes the fat dolls. WHY? If they want to, they will. But this PC crap is getting sickening. Some fat lady somewhere with a fat kid is going to complain so that the fat kid feels better about herself. Maybe I'll be wrong and it'll just stay as a lame request on Facebook, but we've seen things start this way before. If Mattel doesn't listen they will likely cry foul.

I have a novel idea for them - how about one of the whiners start a small company and sell fat dolls! Being that it's in such high demand, it's a no brainer. How long before gay dolls and other crap start hitting the stores for our children.


A controversy is brewing over a request to remake Barbie in way contrary to the iconic image so many girls knew growing up.

Plus-Size-Modeling.com is suggesting Mattel create a plus-size Barbie. While some say more realistic curves would be a better role model for girls, others say an overly large Barbie would be an unhealthy example.

Plus Size Modeling conducted a poll on its Facebook page on Dec. 18 asking, “Should toy companies start making Plus Sized Barbie dolls?” In just under two weeks, a picture of the poll has received over 40,000 likes, 5,000 comments and 2,700 shares.

“Sure, but Barbie doesn’t need a double chin,” one comment said. “You can be ‘plus size’ w/o the double chin. They could make a ‘thick’ Barbie.”

“Portraying Barbie as a realistic woman with real curves is a very good idea and would send the right message to young girls about self-esteem,” another comment said. “Making a morbidly obese Barbie is BAD!!”

Then there’s this opinion:

“Okay I honestly don’t think how a Barbie looks affects a child’s self-esteem. When I was little I didn’t wanna look like Barbie. Lol. I didn’t think about my looks at all I just wanted to play…”

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/28/plus-size-double-chinned-barbie-sparking-controversial-debate-90732

[tailfins]

To bring back a term my grandmother often used: Let's call it "Heifer Barbie".

[LiberalNation]

It's a fun concept photoshopping common celebrity icons plus sized. That Barbie has too many chins though. Not pretty.

[jimnyc]

It's a fun concept photoshopping common celebrity icons plus sized. That Barbie has too many chins though. Not pretty.

That I can understand. But it's the "requesting" or demands that are made for companies to change their ways to accommodate or appease the complainers in the crowd.

[jimnyc]

It's a fun concept photoshopping common celebrity icons plus sized. That Barbie has too many chins though. Not pretty.

*off topic!

How have ya been? It's been awhile since you came to visit us. Still in the military, I hope? Hope all is well. :)

[LiberalNation]

That I can understand. But it's the "requesting" or demands that are made for companies to change their ways to accommodate or appease the complainers in the crowd.
Why not. It doesn't hurt anyone to ask. Asking companies to make products you desire is consumerism at its finest.

[jimnyc]

Why not. It doesn't hurt anyone to ask. Asking companies to make products you desire is consumerism at its finest.

If it went that far and was friendly, you're absolutely correct. But it rarely stops there and quite often comes off as "demands", and then follows by negative talk and boycotts and other crap.

With that aside, I still don't even understand why anyone would want a fat doll with multiple chins anyway. Suppose someone does have a fat kid. Is that how you make them feel better, let them feel better because of a fat doll? I'm quite serious when I say that these people are better off finding outdoor activities for these kids.

[fj1200]

I have a novel idea for them - how about one of the whiners start a small company and sell fat dolls! Being that it's in such high demand, it's a no brainer.

I only quote this because that would seem the obvious solution would it not? Are whiners inherently NOT entrepreneurial in spirit?

[jimnyc]

I only quote this because that would seem the obvious solution would it not? Are whiners inherently NOT entrepreneurial in spirit?

Nope, they are intolerant and demanding by nature, apparently.

[tailfins]

I only quote this because that would seem the obvious solution would it not? Are whiners inherently NOT entrepreneurial in spirit?

However, if they have money to spend, an entrepreneur would try to get their business. I'm all for manufacturing a doll they would buy. It should be called Bessie instead of Barbie, though.

[tailfins]

In case anyone missed it, here's a photo of Heifer Barbie:

http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/93104/bigbarb_large.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

And now another example of people trying to tell others how to run their business. Now the fatties are going to request that Mattel makes the fat dolls. WHY? If they want to, they will. But this PC crap is getting sickening. Some fat lady somewhere with a fat kid is going to complain so that the fat kid feels better about herself. Maybe I'll be wrong and it'll just stay as a lame request on Facebook, but we've seen things start this way before. If Mattel doesn't listen they will likely cry foul.

I have a novel idea for them - how about one of the whiners start a small company and sell fat dolls! Being that it's in such high demand, it's a no brainer. How long before gay dolls and other crap start hitting the stores for our children.



http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/28/plus-size-double-chinned-barbie-sparking-controversial-debate-90732

Hmm... well it depends how they do it. If they make the dolls good looking while not being a size 7, it could work. However, I have to have a conversation about a line in the article about "real curves". For instance, Sara Knowles (Cali from Grey's Anatomy) is really hot, hotter than most the other women on the show, but she's definitely more curvy.

Okay, now I'll admit, I like curvy women, but I'm getting more than a little sick of the whole "real women" thing. Barbie was modeled after real women in her general figure, though they obviously didn't go for anatomical accuracy. Those builds do exist, and all women, whether they be models or chunky, are real women. Now me, I generally tend toward women who are not toothpicks, but that has nothing to do with them being more or less women than any other woman on the planet.

There seems to be this sort of counter-elitism (Hm, I like that term), wherein a group railing against elitism, becomes, in themselves, elitist. To say that only size 12's and up are "real women" is no less elitist than the attempt to say that only size 7's and below are beautiful.

All women are real women, and let me be clear as a guy: We're really not that picky. We may have a "type" that tends to catch our eye, but really, when you get right down to it, as long as you've got the right fiddly bits and are fun to be around, we're pretty much in. Seriously, and I'm actually a decently sensitive guy, but it really comes down to that for the vast majority of men.

I do love the commenter who posted how Barbie didn't really effect her self-esteem, because this touches on an important point. Barbies were never supposed to be about "self-esteem", they were made to be generically pretty dolls for little girls to use as fantasy fodder, and for the vast overwhelming majority of kids, that's really as far as they care about it. A lot of times, I think parents are essentially inventing damage to their children that would not if exist if they just didn't keep calling attention to it.

[LiberalNation]

If it went that far and was friendly, you're absolutely correct. But it rarely stops there and quite often comes off as "demands", and then follows by negative talk and boycotts and crap.
So....people we're doing the same thing with the duck dynasty stuff. Demanding a&e keep him on air. Cracker Barrel sell his product or they'd boycott. Just the opposite side & it worked. Is the American way.

[Abbey Marie]

Hmm... well it depends how they do it. If they make the dolls good looking while not being a size 7, it could work. However, I have to have a conversation about a line in the article about "real curves". For instance, Sara Knowles (Cali from Grey's Anatomy) is really hot, hotter than most the other women on the show, but she's definitely more curvy.

Okay, now I'll admit, I like curvy women, but I'm getting more than a little sick of the whole "real women" thing. Barbie was modeled after real women in her general figure, though they obviously didn't go for anatomical accuracy. Those builds do exist, and all women, whether they be models or chunky, are real women. Now me, I generally tend toward women who are not toothpicks, but that has nothing to do with them being more or less women than any other woman on the planet.

There seems to be this sort of counter-elitism (Hm, I like that term), wherein a group railing against elitism, becomes, in themselves, elitist. To say that only size 12's and up are "real women" is no less elitist than the attempt to say that only size 7's and below are beautiful.

All women are real women, and let me be clear as a guy: We're really not that picky. We may have a "type" that tends to catch our eye, but really, when you get right down to it, as long as you've got the right fiddly bits and are fun to be around, we're pretty much in. Seriously, and I'm actually a decently sensitive guy, but it really comes down to that for the vast majority of men.

I do love the commenter who posted how Barbie didn't really effect her self-esteem, because this touches on an important point. Barbies were never supposed to be about "self-esteem", they were made to be generically pretty dolls for little girls to use as fantasy fodder, and for the vast overwhelming majority of kids, that's really as far as they care about it. A lot of times, I think parents are essentially inventing damage to their children that would not if exist if they just didn't keep calling attention to it.

Actually, I think I read once that Barbie's measurements are anatomically impossible (on a real woman).

Surely there is a middle ground between Barbie's ridiculousness and Ms. Double Chins? You know, where most young girls really are?

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, I think I read once that Barbie's measurements are anatomically impossible (on a real woman).

Surely there is a middle ground between Barbie's ridiculousness and Ms. Double Chins? You know, where most young girls really are?

That used to be true, but the measurements back then were based on what would allow barbie to have the doll clothing fit/stay on, and they really didn't go into any sort of psychology for that, or consider that forty years down the line, parents would be saying that Barbie is somehow hurting their daughters' self-esteem. In fact, by my girlfriends annual collection, Barbie has been sized up over the years to make her anatomically possible, or at least as close as they can get without having to go for anatomical accuracy, or falling into the Uncanny Valley (Basically, there comes a points where making look more realistic suddenly takes a drastic drop off a cliff into "thoroughly creepy" territory.

Like I said, I have no issue with them creating a plus-sized barbie, that's all well and good, but I can understand some of why they haven't done so: doll clothes. It sounds weird, but doll clothes are a major factor in why dolls tend to be reskins that are the same size, but with different hair, skin tone, etc.. To create a plus-sized Barbie, they have to create doll clothes to fit the plus-sized barbie. This means a whole class of clothing that won't properly fit standard-sized barbies, and vice versa. It'd be like trying to have a clothing store that only carried size 7, it doesn't work cause we're not all the exact same size, so many different sizes and styles have to be created. This means extra store shelf space for both the standard and plus size dolls and clothes, and whatnot.

Basically, if Mattel figures it's profitable enough to go after it, they will, but they have to be certain that there's going to be enough of a market for the extra trouble and expense they'll be incurring.

[bingster]

And now another example of people trying to tell others how to run their business. Now the fatties are going to request that Mattel makes the fat dolls. WHY? If they want to, they will. But this PC crap is getting sickening. Some fat lady somewhere with a fat kid is going to complain so that the fat kid feels better about herself. Maybe I'll be wrong and it'll just stay as a lame request on Facebook, but we've seen things start this way before. If Mattel doesn't listen they will likely cry foul.

I have a novel idea for them - how about one of the whiners start a small company and sell fat dolls! Being that it's in such high demand, it's a no brainer. How long before gay dolls and other crap start hitting the stores for our children.



http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/28/plus-size-double-chinned-barbie-sparking-controversial-debate-90732

What does advising and doing a survey to determine have to do with "telling someone what to do"? You cons have a problem with this concept. Gays complain about the Duck guy and gays are violating the duck guys rights. Obama speaks out against Fox and Obama is violating Fox's rights. Is the only way to keep from violating a conservative rednecks' rights to just shut the flock up? Thank goodness, I don't live in the south. (my pets are safer too)

They should make a fat barbie. I think it's unhealthy for young ladies to think they have to grow up with small butts and tiny hooters to look healthy. Give me a bedunka dunk anytime Baby!!!!

[bingster]

That I can understand. But it's the "requesting" or demands that are made for companies to change their ways to accommodate or appease the complainers in the crowd.

It's what they live for, man? What is your problem with a citizen's right to speak?

[jafar00]

While Barbie could be made more realistic, normalising obesity is completely wrong. Diabetes, heart disease, brain disorders and other health issues related to obesity and over consumption of highly processed junk are not things to celebrate or promote.

[Jeff]

Is the only way to keep from violating a conservative rednecks' rights to just shut the flock up? Thank goodness, I don't live in the south. (my pets are safer too)


With a name like bingster it is easy to see why you would want to stay away :laugh: As for your pets you are probably correct, see we don't have much use for those pink poodles :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

That used to be true, but the measurements back then were based on what would allow barbie to have the doll clothing fit/stay on, and they really didn't go into any sort of psychology for that, or consider that forty years down the line, parents would be saying that Barbie is somehow hurting their daughters' self-esteem. In fact, by my girlfriends annual collection, Barbie has been sized up over the years to make her anatomically possible, or at least as close as they can get without having to go for anatomical accuracy, or falling into the Uncanny Valley (Basically, there comes a points where making look more realistic suddenly takes a drastic drop off a cliff into "thoroughly creepy" territory.

Like I said, I have no issue with them creating a plus-sized barbie, that's all well and good, but I can understand some of why they haven't done so: doll clothes. It sounds weird, but doll clothes are a major factor in why dolls tend to be reskins that are the same size, but with different hair, skin tone, etc.. To create a plus-sized Barbie, they have to create doll clothes to fit the plus-sized barbie. This means a whole class of clothing that won't properly fit standard-sized barbies, and vice versa. It'd be like trying to have a clothing store that only carried size 7, it doesn't work cause we're not all the exact same size, so many different sizes and styles have to be created. This means extra store shelf space for both the standard and plus size dolls and clothes, and whatnot.

Basically, if Mattel figures it's profitable enough to go after it, they will, but they have to be certain that there's going to be enough of a market for the extra trouble and expense they'll be incurring.

Dragon, I'm not sure where you got the bolded idea. They make the clothes to fit the doll; not the other way around. They can make clothes to fit any size/shape doll they want.

Having said that, I played with Barbies as a child, and if I was being harmed psychologically, I wasn't aware of it. I never thought about trying to look like a 12" doll.

[Abbey Marie]

With a name like bingster it is easy to see why you would want to stay away :laugh: As for your pets you are probably correct, see we don't have much use for those pink poodles :laugh:


Jeff, don't you get tired of ignorant people putting down the South? I guess libs are only "inclusive" of the people who will be sure to vote their way.

[DragonStryk72]

Dragon, I'm not sure where you got the bolded idea. They make the clothes to fit the doll; not the other way around. They can make clothes to fit any size/shape doll they want.

Having said that, I played with Barbies as a child, and if I was being harmed psychologically, I wasn't aware of it. I never thought about trying to look like a 12" doll.

Right, but what they wanted was a doll that was generically pretty, while still being able to properly wear very feminine clothing. Making multiple sizes was simply not cost-effective at the time. In order to make the clothes fit to the doll the way they were going for, you had to look at the construction of the doll, and having a single standard size meant that all the barbie doll clothes would fit every barbie doll, as opposed to other scenarios where it would only fit some of them. They came up with a standard size, and moved forward from there.

Sure, they could have chosen a bigger size, but they were shooting for generic pretty, not a niche group, and so chose the general look of pretty girls of the day, which would be the pinups of the time. They never worried about whether it was realistic or not, because that was never the point of the barbie. The point was to have an entertaining fantasy doll that girls would want, and parts would buy.

[Jeff]

Jeff, don't you get tired of ignorant people putting down the South? I guess libs are only "inclusive" of the people who will be sure to vote their way.


Ms. Abbey it is a easy shot for them because most in the south could careless about what some liberal has to say . Then take in fact that when summer comes they will be heading this way for vacation but I bet when they stop in one of the gas stations they aren't talking that same trash :laugh:

[jimnyc]

What does advising and doing a survey to determine have to do with "telling someone what to do"?

Because that's how it starts, and maybe you should have read some of the endless comments there and on the news story sites, which not only are making light demands already, but also the lame liberals are getting downright "filthy" about the subject (typical of liberals though)


You cons have a problem with this concept.

"you cons"? We cons wouldn't do any such thing if the lame liberals of this world aren't trying to demand tolerance from everyone while sticking their fingers in their ears when they are the ones expected to be tolerant. How do you fit a Q tip in there while your fingers are stuck in there for so long?


Gays complain about the Duck guy and gays are violating the duck guys rights.

So it was only queers who complained? And who said they had their rights violated? How about you quote that here instead of making shit up? Everyone here agreed that the company was within their rights and that free speech doesn't apply to a business like A&E. Just tossing things out there as insults without knowing what you speak of makes you look silly.


Obama speaks out against Fox and Obama is violating Fox's rights.

No he wouldn't be if he did that, unless they were somehow limited from replying. But it is odd that a sitting president would enter the fray of something that could be divisive, but then again, that's ALL that McChimpy has accomplished in office thus far.


Is the only way to keep from violating a conservative rednecks' rights to just shut the flock up? Thank goodness, I don't live in the south. (my pets are safer too)

You couldn't handle living in the South, as one would need to be a MAN to handle it. My 2 little nephews would laugh at a sissy little liberal like you! LOL And rednecks? Yep, and you can call me one too - and I'll gladly enter our 1 on 1 debate section here and debate you on ANY subject in the world, and put my $500 up to your $50. We pick out 6 judges, you pick 3 and me 3. How's about it, surely you can beat a redneck type of guy who you think your dogs fear? What subject do you want? Who do you want to hold your $50 until I'm done showing everyone just how foolish and uneducated you are? PM me if you don't want others to laugh at you.


They should make a fat barbie. I think it's unhealthy for young ladies to think they have to grow up with small butts and tiny hooters to look healthy. Give me a bedunka dunk anytime Baby!!!!

Maybe make a liberal Barbie. They can hand out an empty package, which would represent both the liberal brain and executed campaign promises! :laugh:


It's what they live for, man? What is your problem with a citizen's right to speak?

None. Apparently YOU have the issue though, as that's what I did, speak, and now we see you whining and making a dolt out of yourself. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Right, but what they wanted was a doll that was generically pretty, while still being able to properly wear very feminine clothing. Making multiple sizes was simply not cost-effective at the time. In order to make the clothes fit to the doll the way they were going for, you had to look at the construction of the doll, and having a single standard size meant that all the barbie doll clothes would fit every barbie doll, as opposed to other scenarios where it would only fit some of them. They came up with a standard size, and moved forward from there.

Sure, they could have chosen a bigger size, but they were shooting for generic pretty, not a niche group, and so chose the general look of pretty girls of the day, which would be the pinups of the time. They never worried about whether it was realistic or not, because that was never the point of the barbie. The point was to have an entertaining fantasy doll that girls would want, and parts would buy.

I never said they should have made multiple sizes. Nor did I say they should have made her a double-chinned obese doll. My response was simply that the proportions they made Barbie were anatomically impossible for a human woman (according to an article I once read), and separately, that they did not have to make her that ridiculous in order to fit clothing to her. Two points I still stand behind.

[jimnyc]

I never said they should have made multiple sizes. Not did I say they should have made her a double-chinned obese doll. My response was simply that the proportions they made Barbie were anatomically impossible for a human woman I (according to an article I once read), and separately, that they did not have to make her that ridiculous in order to fit clothing to her. Two points I still stand behind.

You're a crazy redneck conservative who is trying to limit what others can say!! :lol:

Someone like bingster should be complaining loudly. He said:


I think it's unhealthy for young ladies to think they have to grow up with small butts and tiny hooters to look healthy.

But he does support children wanting to grow up someday and have multiple chins, diabetes and obesity issues. Only in liberal la la land!!

[tailfins]

Jeff, don't you get tired of ignorant people putting down the South? I guess libs are only "inclusive" of the people who will be sure to vote their way.

There are several minuses about living in the South. It seems most of the rogue cop news stories come out of the South. Too many Southern based corporations have a "do as your told" plantation mentality that stifles excellence and craftsmanship. Perhaps a combination of living in the South while exercising Boston-style non-fraternization with people who haven't proven their trustworthiness is a winning formula.

[jimnyc]

Jeff, don't you get tired of ignorant people putting down the South? I guess libs are only "inclusive" of the people who will be sure to vote their way.

I would take ANY part of the South over liberal infested areas. They are worse than roaches.

[tailfins]

I would take ANY part of the South over liberal infested areas. They are worse than roaches.

So you like poverty do you? Not everything is about politics. While some places have so much socialism that it drowns out any native economic advantage, some liberal places are still a good deal. Minnesota comes to mind. Massachusetts can have some nice times as well. Most of the South just doesn't bring opportunity. Texas stands out with oil money used to grow other business areas. Florida can be good if you're in the right place at the right time.

Here's what Forbes has to say on the matter:


Again, these rankings are based on an analysis that considered:


Average wage and unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Cost of living data from C2ER (formerly ACCRA)
State tax rate information from Tax-Rates.org
The Workplace Environment rankings from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index poll

Going from best to worst, here is how all 50 U.S. states ranked for 2013:

<colgroup><col width="25"> <col width="113"> </colgroup> <tbody>
1.
Washington


2.
Virginia


3.
Colorado


4.
Texas


5.
Wyoming


6.
Minnesota


7.
Nebraska


8.
Utah


9.
Kansas


10.
Oklahoma


11.
Arizona


12.
Iowa


13.
Massachusetts


14.
Missouri


15.
Indiana


16.
Michigan


17.
North Dakota


18.
Nevada


19.
Pennsylvania


20.
Idaho


21.
Ohio


22.
Illinois


23.
Georgia


24.
Tennessee


25.
Wisconsin


26.
Maryland


27.
Delaware


28.
Florida


29.
California


30.
Kentucky


31.
Arkansas


32.
Louisiana


33.
Oregon


34.
Montana


35.
New Mexico


36.
New Hampshire


37.
Connecticut


38.
North Carolina


39.
Alabama


40.
Maine


41.
South Dakota


42.
Alaska


43.
Vermont


44.
West Virginia


45.
New Jersey


46.
South Carolina


47.
New York


48.
Rhode Island


49.
Mississippi


50.
Hawaii

</tbody>

[jimnyc]

So you like poverty do you?

I live in NY as you know. It's infested with liberals. Politically speaking, they make me miserable. Even just as "people", the liberals are very aggressive and intolerant. My point is that I would rather not live in a place so dominated by liberals to the point that they make me unhappy and fuck things up with their politics. "Most" liberals I have befriended or have associated with in the past 15 years have been nothing but intolerant for anything outside of what they believe. I think you can find TONS of places around America to live that aren't infestations and one can still live just fine.

[DragonStryk72]

I never said they should have made multiple sizes. Not did I say they should have made her a double-chinned obese doll. My response was simply that the proportions they made Barbie were anatomically impossible for a human woman I (according to an article I once read), and separately, that they did not have to make her that ridiculous in order to fit clothing to her. Two points I still stand behind.

I was giving information as to how these things came about, because unfortunately, I end up with this kind of trivia. And Barbie's structure is not that ridiculous. I've seen women that look like at, or at least close, so why do they have any less right to representation? See the problem of that line of argument? It simply changes the direction of the elitism, but it doesn't get rid of it. Instead of the thin-girl centric model, you just change it out for a

It's not just a simple matter of fitting, they were trying to, as I've said every time, create a generically "pretty" girl-doll, and a generically handsome boy-doll, set so that the clothing sit and fits correctly on every doll. Whether or not you brought up multiple sizes, it's a simple reality of the business, Abbey. They make a lot of their profit off of the doll-clothes that get sold. If they make a plus-sized barbie, there's really only two ways to do it: Either sell multiple sizes side-by-side, or they have to scrap the current barbie for the plus-sized one. If they scrap original barbie, whoever does so is wagering their entire livelihood, along with the livelihoods of other and a lot of money, on it catching on and selling just as well, because if it doesn't, they're going to be looking for new jobs.

They're simply not going to make that choice when they've got a product that's already selling, and has been for over five decades. But, as it stands, this really isn't the way to get what they're actually going for, which is, really, a plus-sized model that girls can look up to. It's a modelling company specializing in plus-sized models, so the best thing they could do would be to invest in creating a new line of dolls using their own models as the baseline.

[Abbey Marie]

So you like poverty do you? Not everything is about politics. While some places have so much socialism that it drowns out any native economic advantage, some liberal places are still a good deal. Minnesota comes to mind. Massachusetts can have some nice times as well. Most of the South just doesn't bring opportunity. Texas stands out with oil money used to grow other business areas. Florida can be good if you're in the right place at the right time.

Here's what Forbes has to say on the matter:

I am wondering what effect that nebulous last category ("workplace environment") has on the rankings. It raises a red flag for me, and may throw off the whole thing.

[Abbey Marie]

I was giving information as to how these things came about, because unfortunately, I end up with this kind of trivia. And Barbie's structure is not that ridiculous. I've seen women that look like at, or at least close, so why do they have any less right to representation? See the problem of that line of argument? It simply changes the direction of the elitism, but it doesn't get rid of it. Instead of the thin-girl centric model, you just change it out for a

It's not just a simple matter of fitting, they were trying to, as I've said every time, create a generically "pretty" girl-doll, and a generically handsome boy-doll, set so that the clothing sit and fits correctly on every doll. Whether or not you brought up multiple sizes, it's a simple reality of the business, Abbey. They make a lot of their profit off of the doll-clothes that get sold. If they make a plus-sized barbie, there's really only two ways to do it: Either sell multiple sizes side-by-side, or they have to scrap the current barbie for the plus-sized one. If they scrap original barbie, whoever does so is wagering their entire livelihood, along with the livelihoods of other and a lot of money, on it catching on and selling just as well, because if it doesn't, they're going to be looking for new jobs.

They're simply not going to make that choice when they've got a product that's already selling, and has been for over five decades. But, as it stands, this really isn't the way to get what they're actually going for, which is, really, a plus-sized model that girls can look up to. It's a modelling company specializing in plus-sized models, so the best thing they could do would be to invest in creating a new line of dolls using their own models as the baseline.


http://i.imgur.com/xsT7xo1.png