Sort of... I think you're right that AG shouldn't _have_ to support knock-off merchandise.

But your Mercedes analogy doesn't hold up. In this case, we have a little girl *on a play date*. This isn't an adult who has chosen to buy a Ford driving into a Mercedes dealer. It's a little girl, out with her little girl friends. The little girl was certainly not in a position to buy an AG doll on the spot to meet their criteria. Nothing at all ever had to be said *to the little girl*. They could have pulled the host mother aside and explained their policy and come up with a creative solution. I'm sure there is one. Our society accepts that children are, well, children and that we should handle some situations differently.

What was the benefit to AG by refusing this girl service? Did they really protect their brand? Or did they just make themselves seem like a monster for humiliating a little girl out on a play date?

It's hard to tell from the mother's letter how much is accurate and how much is hyperbole. But AG *certainly* could have handled the experience better. Instead of reinforcing their brand and creating a positive experience for a potential customer, they come off looking like monsters who destroy the dreams of six year-old girls over corporate branding.

I'd argue that the incident has done more damage to the brand than taking the girl's $20 and finding some way on the spot to make her feel special. If even a fraction of the mother's claims are true about how AG handled the situation with a six year-old, they need a serious lesson in customer service.

Or, let me put it this way. You drive a Ford into the Mercedes dealership and ask for an oil change. (A) They can can look at your car and exclaim, "That's not a real Mercedes!" (B) They can say, "Oh, I'm so sorry, we don't have the right tools to change the oil on your car. But tell you what, let me call the Ford Dealership and schedule you an appointment, I'll even try to see if they can squeeze you in now." Etc.

In both cases, they don't work on a car they don't sell. But which do you suppose leaves a better taste in the mouth of the person who came in and serves the brand best?

Had AG taken the girls $20 and explained to the play-date mom that normally they would not do this, but they'd make an exception *only* because it was a play date and the little girl wasn't with her own parent to help handle the situation, you know what they would have? 1) A happy little girl with an AG story to tell all her friends. 2) A mother (the play date mom) who was already an AG customer and who now had a great customer service story to tell her friends about how buying a real AG is so worth it, because they *do* care about little girls.

Maybe we could be more sparing in our use of the term "horrifying" in connection with youg children, allocating its usage more to things like placement of infants in American prisons, complete with prison orange and no toys at all, or the fact that some families find their lives rotten enough in their countries of origin that they are willing to risk this in order to escape.

I have to say that I agree with Dave.

Regardless of American Girl's desire to protect a brand, all they have accomplished is an impromptu example of a ridiculous marketing misadventure. Providing the story checks out, don't be suprised to see this story appear in coming editions of Marketing and Business Management textbooks.

A wonderful example of what NOT to do. Not only is Dave's assertion that the analogy fails to hold up correct, but any explanation that requires that much exlaining is generally worthless, from a consumer perspective.

Of course, I myself am biased. Any business model that encourages classism among children is inherently disgusting to me in the first place...

Christine,

I agree with Dave!: the fact that this was just a playdate was a big deal in the way I read the story. As I understand, as well, you can bring other dolls in for tea at the AG store (I've nieces!). So there was legitimately the possibility of confusion.

Plus, I don't totally think the mercedes example works all that well. Mercedes subsidizes their service department because they overcharge on their cars. $20 for a doll beauty session, which, for what it is worth, is more than it costs for me to get my hair cut, seems to be a full service fare.

Finally, Seth suggests that I should have used a less strong adjective. Maybe so, although I was really reacting to the story about the crowd's reaction, not AGs.

I think Christine is exactly right. The price of an American Girl doll includes the access to follow-up services, just like the price of a dress at Barneys includes the access to their alterations department. Whether or not doll-hairdo services are expensive is irrelevant – they might be expensive, but they seem to be priced at below market, or else the store wouldn’t need to ration those services, wouldn’t have a long line of eager girls waiting for those services, and wouldn’t need to have a policy on dealing with girls who walk in with nonconforming dolls and ask for a $20 doll-hairdo. So, Christine’s Mercedes analogy is right on the money.

As to the mother’s “satirical letter”: does she also write “satirical letters” every time her daughter is asked to sit in coach because she doesn’t have a first-class ticket? That’s a “real life lesson” too, no?

Having said that, if some store employee caused that much grief to my little boy, I might have been tempted to smash her head with my properly embroidered parasol.

"Having said that, if some store employee caused that much grief to my little boy, I might have been tempted to smash her head with my properly embroidered parasol."

The inconsistency between your "logical" argument for the policy and your instinctively negative reaction toward the clerk's actions illustrate the untenability of AG's policy.

Perhaps the clerk could have handled the situation without violating AG policy and without hurting the little girl's feelings, but that type of snobbery that the clerk allegedly displayed is likley (I admit I am assuming this) a direct reflection of the snobbery upon which the policy is premised. ("That's not a real doll.") Hmmm, wonder where the clerk acquired that perception...

Would a flight attendent turn a client with a coach ticket out of first class because the coach ticket was "not a real flight ticket"? I think not.

Dave - AG needs to hire you.

Dave Hoffman: "Mercedes subsidizes their service department because they overcharge on their cars."

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the cars are a loss leader for 100/hour shop charge.

Dolls? This furor is about dolls?

But the flight attendant would turn a client out of first class with an equal amount of snobbery and humiliation.

Right on! About TIME somebody punished kids for having parents who are frugal.

American Girl just bought itself an untenable PR hassle. All it takes is one squeaky wheel and a picture of a teary-eyed moppet to turn public opinion.

AG is right to protect its bottom line, but in so doing, has courted potentially egregious damage to its brand image.

I remember walking through Manhattan one early Sunday. I was walking down Fifth Ave and turned a corner and walked past the AG store. And boy did it freak me out. As you walk by the main entrance, you are treated to the high pitched squels of laughter. Also, I saw a steady stream of well dressed white girls with parents in tow, clutching their AG Dolls and heading into the store. I stood and watched for a few moments and was struck by how it reminded me of families heading to church on Sunday Morning.

"AG is right to protect its bottom line, but in so doing, has courted potentially egregious damage to its brand image."

That sums it all up. The motive (protecting the bottom line) may be valid, but the method used is the whole problem.

Logical, methodical business calculations don't necessarily equate to wise marketing. In other words, having a good reason for doing something doesn't necessaily make it a good thing to do.

The Am. Girl places in Chicago and NY are very obviously designed for owners of AG dolls. The mom here worked in the the toy industry so she must have known that, and even if not she could have checked it out ahead of time. Once her daughter got there, it is certainly possible the AG folks could have handled it better. But it is also possible that they have to limit their services to AG dolls because otherwise they could not promptly serve their own customers (the places are very crowded), and if they made exceptions for one they'd have to make them for all and so forth. It's an unfortunate call but certainly not an outrageous or horrifying situation.

BTW, check out the "Horrible Mom" blog on which the original "satirical letter" was posted. The whole site (like the letter itself) has this defensive, heavy-handed, "everyone is out to get me" tone. Sometimes that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even for "frugal" folks (like me), the AG stuff can be worth it because of its quality and because they do a good job of marketing an experience around it, take care to make the books high quality, etc. If you don't want to do all that then that is your choice (and an FAO Schwartz buyer who lives in a Brooklyn brownstone and has the time to write a blog griping about how the world is treating her is pretty clearly making a choice rather than being forced by circumstances to forego an AG doll for her daughter). But live with the choice and don't somehow make it AG's fault.

I really hope the AG employee was extremely haughty and snobby towards the little girl for bringing in an inferior knock off doll. Clearly, the trend here is toward more and more realistic play.

Was it the famous Armenian Girl doll? Did the little girl want her doll's mustache and arm hair bleached?

I think part of the problem here is that the little girl brought in an imitation. If she had instead brought in a Bratz doll, and asked for a tattoo or a nipple piercing for her doll, I'd have been much more impressed.

Also, rumor has it that Walmart is developing its own doll ecosystem revolving around a character called "Tracy Trailerpark", with in-store beauty salons. This should go along way towards easing class tensions between children.

It occurs to me that Mom was not at the store when this all happened. I suspect that it happened when Julie's mom took them on a playdate. It is horrifying and there is no point in comparing it to the horrors other children suffer.

"and because they do a good job of marketing an experience around it"

I'd say the buzz created around this 'incident' would indicated they aren't doing such a good marketing job.

Marketing isn't just about advertising. It's also about customer service and perception.

It's kind of surprising to see so many "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!" posts.

Dave: Yeah, "customer service" for the actual customers. Indeed, given that the American Girl Experience is part of the whole thing, maybe this public demonstration is exactly what American Girl wants.

I'm an aunt, and I found a beautifully dressed china doll for about $5 at a good thrift store here. (They also sell hardback AG books for $2, with a retail cover price in the teens.)

Damned if the doll doesn't look exactly like the blonde Swede AG girl -- Kristen, I think. I'm ambivalent about the whole AG phenomena -- as an aunt, that's allowable. The grandmother bought a beautifully built doll bed for the child's doll for Christmas -- she loved the gift and knew it was an AG doll bed.

Sometime this summer, I'm hoping to have my new doll meet with the two others, maybe for tea. We can talk about where I found her -- how she's really not an AG (duh -- they know how they look), but fun enough to play with on a summer day anyway. I won't pretend she's the Kristen character, btw.

I'm betting it goes over fine. The thing is -- you want them to aspire, and respect their choices of what they like and want for gifts. But you don't want them to be snobs, in case sometime they have to ride in a non-Mercedes, you know? Enjoy the good, respect quality always, and realize that sometimes you can get close, but slightly different from different places at different prices. Because your auntie can teach you a thing or two too!

"It's also about customer service and perception."

Exactly.

Hey, it's called FREEDOM. As a private business, they have the right to not work on knock-off dolls. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The mom was also perfectly within her rights to write the letter and get out the word that AG is doing this. Then, people can decide whether they want to do business with the store. I certainly would not if what the mom said is true (I have boys so don't need to worry about it). Remember, we "discriminate" all the time. When people turn their noses up at Moet, and order Dom, they are discriminating. When you order a filet instead of a burger, you are discriminating. And, when you choose to work on only the brand of doll you sell, you are discriminating. That's life, and despite the mom's sarcasm, the little girl probably did learn a lesson about life. It's not fair.

Hey, Brian, and FREEDOM aint FREE, neither!

It's not like anyone is out to torch AG. They did what they wanted to do (cuz, hey pardner it's FREEDOM). And, guess what? They're getting their just desserts.

Hey, dorku, you missed the point of my post. As I said, I wouldn't buy one of those dolls. It's like the Dixie Chicks. They were free to say what they said, and folks were free to stop buying their cds and to stop going to their concerts.

I just love this stuff. Folks, it's a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL!!! Good grief - "the mother should have done the research"? For a playdate? WTF? Hope all you 'realists' don't, or ever, have kids.
She's the guest of an apparently loyal customer, and willing to pay full fare. MUCH better to crush her excitement than to accomodate her one lousy time. The letter doesn't mention, but hopefully the 'stylist' that refused her also smacked her a few times to reinforce the message. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say.

I can even imagine the 'stylist' telling her friends that night about the loser brat that had the nerve to expect her to perform her professional skills on some crappy bogus doll. As if!

As usual, it's the so-called grownups that ruin things for the kids. Sigh........

Just to throw my 2 cents in -

I am neither familiar with this brand nor in fact this entire market segment. However, all comments have assumed that exposing young girls to 'classism' was not part of the AG strategy.

I claim that this may not be so. The sort of adult women who get their daughters involved in this sort of playtime likely regard classism as a lifelong pursuit, and the fact that other women's daughters are excluded from tea time is almost certainly why they are willing to pay for it.

Step into someone else's shoes for a moment - if you are going to send your kid on "playdates" with women who behave like this, this is what can happen.

Based on her description of herself and on my personal knowledge of AG doll buyers, I would guess that the mother who posted the criticism of AG is in exactly the same "class" (under any reasonable understanding of the term) as most or all of the other folks in that line. I'd also guess that her daughter was not appreciably different from the other girls in line, on a "class" basis or any other, except that her mother chose to send her to an AG event without an AG doll.

No one even touched on the fact they are spending $20 to style a DOLL's hair. AG stores sound like very scary places to me.

A pox on both their houses:

1. AG has a right to do what they want, blah blah blah, but nobody's contesting that. The customer is not the six year old. The customer is the parent. The six year old should not be the one that is cut down, and the thing all the "this is about DOLLS?!?" people need to know is that when you're six, the doll is like a real baby or person, and the kid feels responsible for it and protective of it. To be told that your doll is not real - in front of the doll - is kind of harsh, particularly when you're six. Not necessary.

2. If you don't want your kid to be a materialistic status seeker, don't buy the knock-off for her and then wait for the world to teach her a lesson. You'd better introduce her yourself into this world where some dolls are viewed as better than others, and that it's not true, but she'd better be prepared for the snootiness that she and her doll might get because you didn't pay extra for membership. And I'm not saying you should have - but if there's such a thing as a knock off to begin with, then there's going to be some snootiness towards it.

That little girl is going to grow up to be an athiestic, bra-burning, socialist, feminazi!
Seriously though, the concept of children having/experiencing a period of time defined as "childhood" is only 200 yrs old.

Once, thanks to lousy traffic, I had a choice between showing up at Canlis (one of Seattle's fanciest restaurants) wearing jeans, or showing up an hour late. I decided to risk it and wear the jeans. Soon after we sat down, the waiter leaned down towards me and whispered "Sir, Canlis prefers that our customers not wear blue jeans to the restaurant." I said "Thanks, I'm sorry." Minimal embarrassment, no lawsuit or bad PR, and I won't do it again. Seems to me that the American Girl staff could have whispered something similar to the grownup involved.

sheesh....i can remember my cousin and i both having barbie dolls. she got all her clothes from the store. very nice, i thought. what i didn't know was that my cousin thought i had the best dressed barbie. what did i know? i just used scraps of material and other old doll clothes and my imagination. had fun. i think everyone is way to concerned about this whole thing. if you make it a big deal it will become a big deal. i also heard a story about a guy complaining to a ' cereal company' that he did not get the requist '2 scoops' of raisin in his cereal box. they sent him a case of cereal. maybe this lady want an american girl doll (for free). maybe....she'll get the whole set of dolls!

Let's say the AG employee did go ahead and style the doll's hair, and then it began to fall out, kink up, etc. Then the mom would be suing. With complainers you can't win no matter what you do, so you might as well follow your own policies. AG knows how their doll's hair will respond to "styling". How do they know what another doll's hair is made of or how it will respond? The employee could have handled it with a little more diplomacy.

I have three kids, two of whom have AG dolls that they're pretty lukewarm about. I've never been to an AG store and never plan to go, but I did read the blog entry about "Etta's" experience....and then I read some other blog entries by that blogger.

In doing so, I came to the inescapable (I think) conclusion that the story was at worst completely false, and at best greatly exaggerated. And I'm sorry, but I can't get worked up about a stylist allegedly being rude to a well-to-do kid at an upscale Manhattan store.

Even if there is some truth to this tale of woe, the person most at fault is the other playdate mom for not intervening appropriately. Second at fault is the mother herself, for not contacting AG Place management about the incident.

But I don't buy any of it for a minute. The stylist *may* have refused to style the doll's hair per AG doll salon policy, but I seriously doubt she was rude about it, and I simply cannot believe that a catty gaggle of elitist mothers was there just to heap scorn on a six-year-old.

The whole blog entry was crafted to fall in line with the blogger's schtick of imagined poverty (would that all the poor have access to minivans with tvs, spa vacations, family trips to Ireland, and the like) and social inferiority.

I'm just sorry so many people have fallen for this and wasted brain cells on outrage over what may or may not have happened to a pretty privileged kid.

I have been to AGPNY many times. My Daughters love the dolls as do I. We have a great time playing with them.

My family is not wealthy, we just choose to spend our money on items that hold up. I use a personal shopper there - I don't need to buy anything to have that service she gets me anything I need and will even ship it. She doesn't care if I buy 1 thing 10 things or nothing.

THey turned the store upside down looking for a toy my little girl lost -Not an AG toy mind you, but a McDonalds Happy meal toy. They Looked for TWO hours.

I think the mom made up the story about the other customers - Or if they did say something it was after little ETTA had a screaming melt down of Spoiled Affluence - Probably the first time in her life she didn't get her way.

Sad so many are willing to jump on the band wagon and have said they would get rid of their daughters dolls

Hey send them this way - I could use them

My daughter has an AG doll and a Target knockoff. The Target knockoff's hair would never have withstood the styling. The Target knockoff has cheap, crappy hair that is now a ratsnest. The AG dolls on the other hand, stand up to repeated stylings.

Probably the stylists are not allowed to work on other dolls due to liability issues. I doubt they were as rude as the lady in the blog made them out to be.

Check out our American Girl Doll Parody, opening in Chicago this June:

www.refugeegirlsrevue.com

i also agree. AG should not support the target doll. ita a good way to maintain the integrity of the AG dolls.

you can bring the doll there now...but you have to sign a disclaimer form