Abstract:Introduction Where children’s television once ruled supreme as a vehicle for sales of kids’ brands, the marketing of children’s toys now often hinges on having the right social media influencer, many of them children themselves (Verdon). As Forbes reported in 2021, the pandemic saw an increase in children spending more time online, many following their favourite influencers on YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. The importance of tapping into partnering with the right influencer grew, as did sales in toys for children isolated at home. We detail, through a case study approach and visual narrative analysis of two Australian influencer siblings’ Instagram accounts, the nature of toy marketing to children in 2023. Findings point to the continued gendered nature of toys and the concurrent promotion of aspirational adult ‘toys’ (for example, cars, high-end cosmetics) and leisure pursuits that blur the line between what we considered to be children’s playthings and adult objects of desire. To Market, to Market Toys are a huge business worldwide. In 2021, the global toys market was projected to grow from $141.08 billion to $230.64 billion by 2028. During COVID-19, toy sales increased (Fortune Business Insights). The rise of the Internet alongside media and digital technologies has given toy marketers new opportunities to reach children directly, as well as producing new forms of digitally enabled play, with marketers potentially having access to children 24/7, way beyond the previous limits of children’s programming on television (Hains and Jennings). Children’s digital content has also extended to digital games alongside digital devices and Internet-connected toys. Children’s personal tablet ownership rose from less than 1 per cent in 2011 to 42 per cent in 2017 (Rideout), and continues to grow. Children’s value for brands and marketers has increased over time (Cunningham). The nexus between physical toys and the entertainment industry has grown stronger, first with the Disney company and then with the stand-out success of the Star Wars franchise (now owned by Disney) from the late 1970s (Hains and Jennings). The concept of transmedia storytelling and selling, with toys as the vehicle for children to play out the stories they saw on television, in comics, books, movies, and online, proved to be a lucrative one for the entertainment company franchises and the toy manufacturers (Bainbridge). All major toy brands now recognise the power of linking toy brands and entertaining transmedia children’s texts, including online content, with Disney, LEGO and Barbie being obvious examples. Gender and Toys: Boys and Girls Come Out to Play Alongside the growth of the children’s market, the gendering of children’s toys has also continued and increased, with concerns that traditional gender roles are still strongly promoted via children’s toys (Fine and Rush). Research shows that girls’ toys are socialising them for caring roles, shopping, and concern with beauty, while toys aimed at boys (including transportation and construction toys, action figures, and weapons) may promote physicality, aggression, construction, and action (Fine and Rush). As Blakemore and Center (632) suggested, then, if children learn from toy-play “by playing with strongly stereotyped toys, girls can be expected to learn that appearance and attractiveness are central to their worth, and that nurturance and domestic skills are important to be developed. Boys can be expected to learn that aggression, violence, and competition are fun, and that their toys are exciting and risky”. Recently there has been some pushback by consumers, and some toy brands have responded, with LEGO committing to less gendered toy marketing (Russell). YouTube: The World’s Most Popular Babysitter? One business executive has described YouTube as the most popular babysitter in the world (Capitalism.com). The use of children as influencers on YouTube to market toys through toy review videos is now a common practice (Feller and Burroughs; De Veirman et al.). These ‘reviews’ are not critical in the traditional sense of reviews in an institutional or legacy media context. Instead, the genre is a mash-up, which blurs the lines between three major genres: review, branded content, and entertainment (Jaakkola). Concerns have been raised about advertising disguised as entertainment for children, and calls have been made for nuanced regulatory approaches (Craig and Cunningham). The most popular toy review channels have millions of subscribers, and their hosts constitute some of YouTube’s top earners (Hunting). Toy review videos have become an important force in children’s media – in terms of economics, culture, and for brands (Hunting). Concurrently, surprise toys have risen as a popular type of toy, thanks in part to the popularity of the unboxing toy review genre (Nicoll and Nansen). Ryan’s World is probably the best-known in this genre, with conservative estimates putting 10-year-old Ryan Kanji’s family earnings at $25 million annually (Kang). Ryan’s World, formerly Ryan’s Toy Review, now has 10 YouTube channels and the star has his own show on Nic Junior as well as across other media, including books and video games (Capitalism.com). Marsh, through her case study of one child, showed the way children interact with online content, including unboxing videos, as ‘cyberflaneurs’. YouTube is the medium of choice for most children (now more so than television; Auxier et al.). However, Instagram is also a site where a significant number of children and teens spend time. Australian data from the e-Safety Commission in 2018 showed that while YouTube was the most popular platform, with 80 per cent of children 8-12 and 86 per cent of teens using the site, 24 per cent of children used Instagram, and 70 per cent of teens 13-17 (e-Safety Commissioner). Given the rise in social media, phone, and tablet use in the last five years, including among younger children, these statistics are now likely to be higher. A report from US-based Business Insider in 2021 stated that 40 per cent of children under 13 already use Instagram (Canales). This is despite the platform ostensibly only being for people aged 13 and over. Ofcom (the UK’s regulator for communications services) has discussed the rise of ‘Tik-Tots’ – young children defying age restrictions to be on social media – and the increase of young people consuming rather than sharing on social media (Ofcom). Insta-Kidfluencers on the Rise Marketers are now tapping into the selling power of children as social media influencers (or kidfluencers) to promote children’s toys, and in some cases, parents are happy to act as their children’s agents and managers for these pint-size prosumers. Abidin ("Micromicrocelebrity") was the first to discuss what she termed ‘micro-microcelebrities’, children of social media influencers (usually mothers) who have become, through their parents’ mediation, paid social media influencers themselves, often through Instagram. As Abidin noted: “their digital presence is deliberately commercial, framed and staged by Influencer mothers in order to maximize their advertorial potential, and are often postured to market even non-baby/parenting products such as fast food and vehicles”. Since that time, and with children now a growing audience on Instagram, some micro-microcelebrities have begun to promote toys alongside other brands which appeal to both children and adults. While initially these human ‘brand extensions’ of their mothers (Archer) appealed to adults, their sponsored content has evolved as they have aged, and their audience has grown and broadened to include children. Given the rise of Instagram as a site for the marketing of toys to children, through children themselves as social media influencers, and the lack of academic research on this phenomenon, our research looks at a case study of prominent child social media influencers on Instagram in Australia, who are managed by their mother, and who regularly promote toys. Within the case study, visual narrative analysis is used, to analyse the Instagram accounts of two high-profile child social media influencers, eleven-year-old Australian Pixie Curtis and her eight-year-old brother, Hunter Curtis, both of whom are managed by their entrepreneur and ‘PR queen’ mother, Roxy Jacenko. We analysed the posts from each child from March to July 2022 inclusive. Posts were recorded in a spreadsheet, with the content described, hashtags or handles recorded, and any brand or toy mentions noted. We used related media reports to supplement the analysis. We have considered ethical implications of our research and have made the decision to identify both children, as their accounts are public, with large follower numbers, promote commercial interests, and have the blue Instagram ‘tick’ that identifies their accounts as verified and ‘celebrity’ or brand accounts, and the children are regularly featured in mainstream media. The children’s mother, Jacenko, often discusses the children on television and has discussed using Pixie’s parties as events to gain publicity for the toy business. We have followed the lead of Abidin and Leaver, considered experts in the field, who have identified children and families in ethnographic research when the children or families have large numbers of followers (see Abidin, "#Familygoals"; Leaver and Abidin). We do acknowledge that other researchers have chosen not to identify influencer children (e.g., Ågren) with smaller numbers of followers. The research questions are as follows: RQ1: What are the toys featured on the two social media influencer children’s sites? RQ2: Are the toys traditionally gendered and if so, what are the main gender-based toys? RQ3: Do the children promote products that are traditionally aimed at adults? If so, how are these ‘toys’ presented, and what are they? Analysis The two child influencers and toy promoters, sister and brother Pixie (11) and Hunter (8) Curtis, are the children of celebrity, entrepreneur and public relations ‘maven’, Roxy Jacenko. Jacenko’s first business was a public relations firm, Sweaty Betty, one she ran successfully but has recently closed to focus on her influencer talent agency business, the Ministry of Talent, and the two businesses related to her children, Pixie’s Pix (an online toy store named after her daughter) and Pixie’s Bows, a line of fashion bows aimed at girls (Madigan). Pixie Curtis grew up with her own Instagram account, with her first Instagram post on 18 June 2013, before turning two, and featuring a promotion of an online subscription service for toys, with the hashtag #babblebox. At time of writing, Pixie has 120,000 Instagram followers; her ‘bio’ describes her account as ‘shopping and retail’ and as managed by Jacenko. Pixie is also described as the ‘founder of Pixie’s Pix Toy Store’. Her brother Hunter’s account began on 6 May 2015, with the first post to celebrate his first birthday. Hunter’s page has 20,000 followers with his profile stating that it is managed by his mother and her talent and influencer agency. RQ1: What are the toys featured on the two children’s Instagram sites? The two children feature toy promotions regularly, mostly from Pixie’s online toy shop, with the site tagged @pixiespixonline. These toys are often demonstrated by Pixie and Hunter in short video format, following the now-established genre of the toy unboxing or toy review. Toys that are shown on Pixie’s site (tagged to her toy store) include air-clay (clay designed to be used to create clay sculptures); a Scruff-a-Luv soft toy that mimics a rescue pet that needs to be bathed in water, dried, and groomed to become a ‘lovable’ soft toy pet; toy slime; kinetic sand; Hatchimals (flying fairy/pixie dolls that come out of plastic eggs); LOL OMG dolls and Mermaze (both with accentuated female/made up features). LOL OMG (short for Outrageous Millennial Girls) are described as “fierce, fashionable, fabulous” and their name taps into common language used to communicate while texting. Mermaze are also fashion and hair styling dolls, with a mermaid’s tail that changes colour in water. While predominantly promoting toys on Pixie’s Pix, Pixie posts promotions of other items on her Website aimed at children. This includes practical items such as lunch boxes, but also beauty products including a skin care headband and scented body scrubs. Toys shown on Hunter’s Instagram site are often promotions of his sister’s toy store offerings, but generally fall into the traditional ‘boys’ toys’ categories. The posts that tag the Pixie’s Pix store feature photos or video demonstrations by Hunter of toys, including trucks, slime, ‘Splat balls’ (squish balls), Pokémon cards, Zuru toys’ ‘Smashers’ (dinosaur eggs that are smashed to reveal a dinosaur toy), a Bubblegum simulator for Roblox (a social media platform and game), Needoh Stickums, water bombs, and Hot Wheels. RQ2: Are the toys traditionally gendered and if so, what are the main gender-based toys? Although both children promote gender-neutral sensory toys such as slime and splat balls, they do promote strongly gendered toys from Pixie’s Pix. Hunter also promotes gendered toys that are not tagged to Pixie’s Pix, including Jurassic World dinosaur toys (tying into the film release). One post by Hunter features a (paid) cross-promotion of PlayStation 5 themed Donut King donuts (with a competition to win a PlayStation 5 by buying the donuts). In contrast, Pixie posts a paid promotion of a high-tea event to promote My Little Ponies. Hunter’s posts of toys and leisure items that do not tag Pixie’s toyshop include him on a go-kart, buying rugby gear, and with an ‘airtasker’ (paid assistant) helping him sort his Nerf gun collection. There are posts of both children playing and doing ‘regular’ children’s activities, including sport (Pixie plays netball, Hunter rugby), with their dog, ice-skating, and swimming (albeit often at expensive resorts), while Hunter and Pixie both wear, unbox, and tag some high-end children’s clothes brands such as Balmain and promote department store Myer. RQ3: Do the children promote products that are traditionally aimed at adults? If so, how are these ‘toys’ presented, and what are they? The Cambridge dictionary provides the following two definitions of toys, with one showing that ‘toys’ may also be considered as objects of pleasure for adults. A toy is “an object for children to play with” while it can also be “an object that is used by an adult for pleasure rather than for serious use”. The very meaning of the word toys shows the crossover between the adult and children’s world. The more ‘adult’ products promoted by Pixie are highly gendered, with expensive bags, clothes, make-up, and skin care regularly featured on her account. These are arguably toys but also teen or adult objects of aspiration, with Pixie’s collection of handbags featured and the brand tagged. The bag collection includes brightly coloured bags by Australian designer Poppy Lissiman. Other female-focussed brands include a hairdryer brand, with photos and videos posted of Pixie ‘playing’ at dressing up and ‘getting ready’, using skincare, make-up, and hair products. These toys cater to age demographics older than Pixie. Hunter is pictured in posts on a jet-ski, and in others with a mobile and tablet, or washing a Tesla car and with a helicopter. The gendered tropes of girls being concerned with their appearance, and boys interested in vehicles, action, and competitive (video) games appear to be borne out in the posts from the two children. Discussion and Conclusion As an entrepreneur, Jacenko has capitalised on her daughter’s and son’s personal brands that she has co-created by launching and promoting a toyshop named after her daughter, following the success of her children’s promotion of toys for other companies and Pixie’s successful hairbow line. The toy shop arose out of Pixie promoting sales of fidget spinners during the pandemic lockdowns where toy sales rose sharply across the world. The children are also now on TikTok, and while they have a toy review channel on YouTube it has not been posted on for three years. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Instagram is one of the main channels for the children to promote the toyshop. In an online newspaper article describing the success of Pixie’s toyshop and the purchase of an expensive Mercedes car, Jacenko said that the children work hard, and the car was their “reward” (Scanlan). “The help both her brother and her [Pixie] give me on the buying (every night we work on new style selections and argue over it), the packing, the restocking, goes well beyond their years”, Jacenko is quoted as saying. “We’ve made a pact, we must keep going, work harder. Next, it’s a Rolls Royce.” Analysis of the children’s Instagram pages shows highly gendered promotion of toys. The children also promote a variety of high-end, aspirational tween, teen, and adult ‘toys’, including clothes, make-up, and skincare (Pixie) and expensive cars (Hunter and Pixie). Gender stereotyping has been found in adult influencer content (see, for example, Jorge et al.) and researchers have also pointed to sexualisation of young girl influencers on Instagram (Llovet et al.). Our research potentially echoes these findings. Posts from the children regularly include aspirational commodities that blur the lines between adult and child items of desire. Concerns have been raised in other academic articles (and in government reports) regarding the possible exploitation of children’s labour by parents and marketers to promote brands, including toys, on social media (see, for example, Ågren; De Veirman et al.; House of Commons; Masterson). The French government is believed to be the only government to have moved to regulate regarding the labour of children as social media influencers, and the same government at time of writing was debating laws to enshrine children’s right to privacy on social media, to stop the practice of ‘sharenting’ or parents sharing their children’s images and other content on social media without their children’s consent (Rieffel). Mainstream media including Teen Vogue (Fortesa), and some influencers themselves, have also started to raise issues relevant to ‘kidfluencers’. In the state of Utah, USA, the government has introduced laws to stop children under 18 having access to social media without parents’ consent, although some view this as potentially having some negative impacts (Singer). The ethics and impact of toy advertorials on children by social media influencers, with little or no disclosure of the posts being advertisements, have also been discussed elsewhere (see, for example, House of Commons; Jaakkola), with Rahali and Livingstone offering suggestions aimed key stakeholders. It has been found that beyond the marketing of toys and adult ‘luxuries’ to kids, other products that potentially harm children (for example, junk food and e-cigarettes) are also commonly seen in sponsored content on Instagram and YouTube aimed at children (Fleming‐Milici, Phaneuf, and Harris; Smith et al.). Indeed, it could be argued that e-cigarettes have been positioned as playthings and are appealing to children. While we may bemoan the loss of innocence of children, with the children in this analysis posed by their entrepreneurial mother as purveyors of material goods including toys, it is useful to remember that perhaps it has always been a conundrum, given the purpose of toy marketing is to make commercial sales. Children’s toys have always reflected and shaped society’s culture, often with surprisingly sinister and adult overtones, including the origins of Barbie as a male ‘sex’ toy (Bainbridge) and the blatant promotion of guns and other weapons to boys (for example the famous Mattel ‘burp’ gun of the 50s and 60s), through advertising and sponsorship of television (Hains and Jennings). Recently, fashion house Balenciaga promoted its range of adult bags using children as models via Instagram – the bags are teddy bears dressed in bondage outfits and the marketing stunt caused considerable backlash, with the sexually dressed bears and use of children raising outrage (Deguara). Were these teddy bags framed as children’s toys for adults or adult toys for children? The line was blurred. This research has limitations as it is focussed on a case study in one country (but with global reach through Instagram). However, the current analysis is believed to be one of the first to focus on children’s promotion of toys through Instagram, by two children’s influencers, a relatively new marketing approach aimed at children. As the article was being finalised, the children’s mother announced that as Pixie was transitioning into high school and wanted to focus on her studies rather than running a business, the toy business would conclude but Pixie’s Bows would continue (Madigan). In the UK, recent research by Livingstone et al. for the Digital Futures Commission potentially offers a way forward related to this phenomenon, when viewed alongside the analysis of our case study. Their final report (following research with children) suggests a Playful by Design Tool that would be useful for designers and brands, but also children, parents, regulators, and other stakeholders. Principles such as adopting ethical commercial models, being age-appropriate and ensuring safety, make sense when applied to kidfluencers and those that stand to benefit from their playbour. It appears that governments, society, some academics, and the media are starting to question the current generally unrestricted frameworks related to social media in general (see, for example, the ACCC’s ongoing enquiry) and toy and other marketing by kids to kids on social media specifically (House of Commons). We argue that more frameworks, and potentially laws, are required in this mostly unregulated space. Through our case study we have highlighted key areas of concern on one of the world’s most popular platforms for children and teens, including privacy issues, commodification, and gendered and ‘stealth’ marketing of toys through ‘advertorials’. We also acknowledge that children do gain playful and social benefits and entertainment from seeing influencers online. Given that it has been shown that gendered marketing of toys (and increased focus on appearance for girls through Instagram) could be potentially harmful to children’s self-esteem, and with related concerns on the continued commodification of childhood, further research is also needed to discover the responses and views of children to these advertorials masquerading as cute content. References Abidin, Crystal. "Micromicrocelebrity: Branding Babies on the Internet." M/C Journal 18.5 (2015). . ———. "#Familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism, and Justifying Young Digital Labor." Social Media + Society 3.2 (2017). ACCC. "Digital Platform Services Inquiry Interim Report Number 5 – Regulatory Reform." Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2022. . Ågren, Ylva. "Branded Childhood: Infants as Digital Capital on Instagram." Childhood (2022). Archer, Catherine. "Pre-Schooler as Brand Extension: A Tale of Pixie’s Bows and Birthdays." Digitising Early Childhood. Eds. Lelia Green et al. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2019. 58-73. Auxier, Brooke, et al. "Parental Views about YouTube." Pew Research Centre, 28 July 2020. . Bainbridge, Jason. "Fully Articulated: The Rise of the Action Figure and the Changing Face of ‘Children's’ Entertainment." Entertainment Industries. Routledge, 2014. 31-44. Blakemore, Judith E. Owen, and Renee E. Centers. "Characteristics of Boys' and Girls' Toys." Sex Roles 53 (2005): 619-33. Canales, Kate. "40% of Kids under 13 Already Use Instagram and Some Are Experiencing Abuse and Sexual Solicitation, a Report Finds, as the Tech Giant Considers Building an Instagram App for Kids." Business Insider 2021. . Capitalism.com. "Ryan Kaji: Charismatic Kid Youtuber Played His Way to a Multi-Million Dollar Fortune." 26 Sep. 2022. . Craig, et al. "Toy Unboxing: Living in an (Unregulated) Material World." Media International Australia 163.1 (2017): 77-86. Cunningham, Hugh. Children and Childhood in Western Society since 1500. Routledge, 2020. Deguara, Brittney. "Everything You Need to Know about Balenciaga's 'Disturbing' Ad Campaign." Kidspot 29 Nov. 2022. . De Veirman, Marijke, Liselot Hudders, and Michelle R. Nelson. "What Is Influencer Marketing and How Does It Target Children? A Review and Direction for Future Research." Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019): 2685. E-Safety Commissioner. "Young People and Social Media Usage." 2018. . Feller, Gavin, and Benjamin Burroughs. "Branding Kidfluencers: Regulating Content and Advertising on YouTube." Television & New Media 23.6 2022: 575-92. Fine, Cordelia, and Emma Rush. "'Why Does All the Girls Have to Buy Pink Stuff?' The Ethics and Science of the Gendered Toy Marketing Debate." Journal of Business Ethics 149 (2018): 769-84. Fleming‐Milici, Frances et al. "Prevalence of Food and Beverage Brands in 'Made‐for‐Kids' Child‐Influencer YouTube Videos: 2019–2020." Pediatric Obesity 2023: e13008. Fortune Business Insights. “Toys Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, by Product Type (Dolls, Outdoor and Sports Toys, Building and Construction Set, Infant and Preschool Toys, Games & Puzzles, and Others), by Age Group (0-3 Years, 3-5 Years, 5-12 Years, 12-18 Years, and 18+ Years), by Distribution Channel (Online and Offline), and Regional Forecast, 2021-2028.” 2021. . Hains, Rebecca C., and Nancy A. Jennings. "Critiquing Children's Consumer Culture: An Introduction to the Marketing of Children's Toys." The Marketing of Children's Toys: Critical Perspectives on Children's Consumer Culture. Eds. Rebecca C. Hains and Nancy A. Jennings. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. 1-20. House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee UK. "Influencer Culture: Lights, Camera, Inaction?" 2022. . Hunting, Kyra. "Unwrapping Toy TV: Ryan’s World and the Toy Review Genre’s Impact on Children’s Culture." The Marketing of Children’s Toys: Critical Perspectives on Children’s Consumer Culture. Eds. Rebecca C. Hains and Nancy A. Jennings. Cham: Springer International, 2021. 105-24. Jaakkola, Maarit. "From Vernacularized Commercialism to Kidbait: Toy Review Videos on Youtube and the Problematics of the Mash-Up Genre." Journal of Children and Media 14.2 (2020): 237-54. Jorge, Ana, et al. "Parenting on Celebrities’ and Influencers’ Social Media: Revamping Traditional Gender Portrayals." Journalism and Media 4.1 (2023): 105-17. Kang, Jay Caspian. "The Boy King of YouTube." The New York Times Magazine 2022. . Latifi, Fortesa. "Influencer Parents and the Kids Who Had Their Childhood Made into Content." Teen Vogue, 10 Mar. 2023. . Leaver, Tama, and Crystal Abidin. "From YouTube to TV, and Back Again: Viral Video Child Stars and Media Flows in the Era of Social Media." Selected Papers of Internet Research (2018). Livingstone, Sonia, et al. "Digital Futures Commission – Final Report." 2023. . Llovet, Carmen, et al. "Are Girls Sexualized on Social Networking Sites? An Analysis of Comments on Instagram of Kristina Pimenova." Beyond the Stereotypes? Images of Boys and Girls, and Their Consequences. Eds. Dafna Lemish and Maya Götz. Göteborg: Nordicom, 2017. Madigan, Mary. “B&T Exclusive: Roxy Jacenko to Close Sweaty Betty by Month's End.” B&T 4 Nov. 2022. . ———. "Roxy Jacenko’s Daughter Pixie Curtis Has Announced a Huge Life Change before Her 12th Birthday." News.com.au 21 Feb. 2023. . Marsh, Jackie. "‘Unboxing’ Videos: Co-Construction of the Child as Cyberflâneur." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37.3 (2016): 369-80. Masterson, Marina A. "When Play Becomes Work: Child Labor Laws in the Era of ‘Kidfluencers’." University of Pa. Law Review 169 (2020): 577. Nicoll, Benjamin, and Bjorn Nansen. "Mimetic Production in Youtube Toy Unboxing Videos." Social Media + Society 4.3 (2018). Ofcom. "Living Our Lives Online – Top Trends from Ofcom’s Latest Research." 2022. . Rahali, Miriam, and Sonia Livingstone. "#SponsoredAds: Monitoring Influencer Marketing to Young Audiences." Media Policy Brief 23. London: Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, 2022. . Rieffel, Ysé. "French MPs Examine Bill on Children's Right to Privacy on Social Media." Le Monde 5 Mar. 2023. Rideout, Victoria. "The Commonsense Census: Media Use by Kids Zero to Eight." 2017. . Russell, Helen. "Lego to Remove Gender Bias from Its Toys after Findings of Child Survey." The Guardian 11 Oct. 2021. . Scanlan, Rebekah. "Roxy Jacenko Buys Daughter, 9, $270,000 Car as Toy Business Booms." News.com.au 3 Aug. 2021. . Singer, Natasha. "A Sweeping Plan to Protect Kids from Social Media." New York Times The Daily Podcast. Ed. Michael Barbaro. 2023. . Smith, Marissa J., et al. "User-Generated Content and Influencer Marketing Involving E-Cigarettes on Social Media: A Scoping Review and Content Analysis of YouTube and Instagram." BMC Public Health 23.1 (2023): 530. Verdon, Joan. "Santa’s Top Toy Sellers This Year Are Influencers." Forbes 14 Nov. 2021. .

Abstract:Introduction Australia has embraced Barbie since the doll was launched at the Toy Fair in Melbourne in 1964, with Mattel Australia established in Melbourne in 1969. Barbie was initially sold in Australia with two different hairstyles and 36 separately boxed outfits. As in the US, the initial launch range was soon followed by a constant stream of additional outfits as well as Barbie’s boyfriend Ken and little sister Skipper, pets, and accessories including her dreamhouse and vehicles. Also released were variously themed Barbies (including those representing different careers and nationalities) and a seemingly ever-expanding group of friends (Gerber; Lord, Forever). These product releases were accompanied by marketing, promotion, and prominent placement in toy, department, and other stores that kept the Barbie line in clear sight of Australian consumers (Hosany) and in the forefront of toy sales for many decades (Burnett). This article focusses on a thread of subversion operating alongside the purchase of these Barbie dolls in Australia, when the phenomenon of handmade ‘do-it-yourself’ intersected with the dolls in the second half of the 1960s. Do-It-Yourself ‘Do-it-yourself’ (often expressed as DIY) has been defined as “anything that people did for themselves” (Gelber 283). The history of DIY has been researched in academic disciplines including sociology, cultural studies, musicology, architecture, marketing, and popular culture. This literature charts DIY practice across such domestic production as making clothes, furniture, and toys, growing food, and home improvements including renovating and even building entire houses (Carter; Fletcher) to more externally facing cultural production including music, art, and publications (Spencer). While DIY behaviour can be motivated by such factors as economic necessity or financial benefit, a lack of product availability or its perceived poor quality, and/or a desire for customisation, it can also be linked to the development of personal identity (Wolf and McQuitty; Williams, “A Lifestyle”; Williams, “Re-thinking”). While some mid-century considerations of DIY as a phenomenon were male-focussed (“Do-It”), women and girls were certainly also active at this time in home renovation, house building, and other projects (‘Arona’), as well as more traditionally gendered handicraft activities such as sewing and knitting. Fig. 1: Australian Home Beautiful magazine cover, November 1958, showing a woman physically engaged in home renovation activities. Australia has a long tradition of women crafting (by sewing, knitting, and crocheting, for instance) items of clothing for themselves and their families, as well as homewares such as waggas (utilitarian quilts made of salvaged or other inexpensive materials such as old blankets and grain sacks) and other quilts (Burke; Gero; Kingston; Thomas). This making was also prompted by a range of reasons, including economic or other necessity and/or the pursuit of creative pleasure, personal wellbeing, or political activism (Fletcher; Green; Lord, Vintage). It is unsurprising, then, that many have also turned their hands to making dolls’ clothes from scraps of fabrics, yarns, ribbons, and other domestic materials, as well as creating entire dolls’ houses complete with furniture and other domestic items (Benson). In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Australian dolls themselves were handmade, with settlers and migrants importing European traditions of doll-making and clothing with them (Cramer). In the early twentieth century, mass-produced dolls and clothing became more available and accessible, however handmade dolls’ clothes continued to be made and circulated within families (Elvin and Elvin, The Art; Elvin and Elvin, The Australian). An article in the Weekly in 1933 contained instructions for making both cloth dolls and clothes for them (“Home-Made”), with many such articles to follow. While the 1960s saw increased consumer spending in Australia, this research reveals that this handmade, DIY ethos (at least in relation to dolls) continued through this decade, and afterwards (Carter; Wilson). This making is documented in artefacts in museum and private collections and instructions in women’s magazines, newspapers, and other printed materials including commercially produced patterns and kits. The investigation scans bestselling women’s magazine The Australian Women’s Weekly (the Weekly) and other Australian print media from the 1960s that are digitised in the National Library of Australia’s Trove database for evidence of interest in this practice. Do-It-Yourself Barbie Doll Patterns for Barbie clothes appeared in Australian women’s magazines almost immediately after the doll was for sale in Australia, including in the Weekly from 1965. The first feature included patterns for a series of quite elaborate outfits: a casual knitted jumpsuit with hooded jacket, a knitted three-piece suit of skirt, roll-necked jumper and jacket, a crocheted afternoon dress, tied with a ribbon belt and accessorised with a knitted coat and beret, and a crocheted full length evening gown and opera coat (“Glamorous”). A sense of providing the Weekly’s trusted guidance but also a reliance on makers’ individuality was prominent in this article. Although detailed instructions were provided in the feature above, for example, readers were also encouraged to experiment with yarns and decorative elements. Fig. 2: Crocheted and knitted ‘afternoon ensemble’ in “Glamorous Clothes for Teenage Dolls” feature in the Weekly, 1965. Another richly illustrated article published in 1965 focussed on creating high fashion wigs for Barbie at home. The text and photographs guided readers through the process of crafting five differently styled wigs from one synthetic hair piece: a “romantic, dreamy” Jean Shrimpton-style coiffure, deep-fringed Sassoon hairdo, layered urchin cut, low set evening bun, and pair of pigtails (Irvine, “How”). Again, makers were encouraged to express their creativity and individuality in decorating these hairstyles, with suggestions (but not directions) to personalise these styles using ribbons, tiny bows and artificial flowers, coloured pins, seed pearls, and other objects that might be to hand. Fig. 3: Detailed instructions for creating one of the wigs. Three Barbie dolls (identified as ‘teen dolls’ rather than by the brand) were featured on the cover of the Weekly on 5 January 1966, for a story about making dolls’ outfits from handkerchiefs (Irvine, “New”). This was framed as a “novel” way to use the excess of fancy hankies often received at Christmas, promising that the three ensembles could thriftily and cleverly be made from three handkerchiefs in a few hours. The instructions detail how to make a casual two-piece summer outfit accessorised with a headscarf, a smart town ensemble highlighted with flower motifs cut from broderie anglaise, and a lavish evening gown. Readers were assured this would be an engaging, “marvellous fun” as well as creative activity, as each maker needed to individually design each garment in terms of working with the individual features of the handkerchiefs they had, incorporating such elements as floral or other borders, lace edging, and overall patterns such as spots or checks (Irvine, “New”). The long-sleeved evening gown was quite an ambitious project. The gown was not only fashioned from a fine Irish linen, lace-bordered hankie, meaning some of the cutting and sewing required considerable finesse, but the neckline and hemline were then hand-beaded, as were a circlet of tiny pearls to be worn around the doll’s hair. Such delicacy was required for all outfits, with armholes and necklines for Barbie dolls very small, requiring considerable dexterity in cutting, sewing, and finishing. Fig. 4: Cover of The Australian Women’s Weekly of 5 January 1966 featuring three Barbie dolls. Only two issues later, the magazine ran another Barbie-focussed feature, this time about using oddments found around the home to make accessories for Barbie dolls. Again, the activity is promoted as thrifty and creative: “make teen doll outfits and accessories economically—all you need is imagination and a variety of household oddments” (“Turn”). Included in the full coloured article is a ‘hula’ costume made from a short length of green silk fringe and little artificial flowers sewn together, hats fashioned from a bottle top and silk flower decorated with scraps of lace and ribbon, a cardboard surfboard, aluminium foil and ice cream stick skis, and miniature ribbon-wound coat hangers. This article ended with an announcement commonly associated with calls for readers’ recipes: “what clever ideas have you got? ... we will award £5 for every idea used” (“Turn”). This was a considerable prize, representing one-third of the average minimum weekly wage for full-time female workers in Australia in 1966 (ABS 320). Fig. 5: Brightly coloured illustrations making the Weekly’s “Turn Oddments into Gay Accessories”, 1966, a joyful read. This story was reinforced with a short ‘behind the scenes’ piece, which revealed the care and energy that went into its production. This reported that, when posing the ‘hulagirl’ on a fountain in Sydney’s Hyde Park, the doll fell in. While her skirt was rescued by drying in front of a fan, the dye from her lei ran and had to be scrubbed off the doll with abrasive sandsoap and the resulting stain then covered up with make-up. After the photographer built the set (inside this time), the shoot was finally completed (“The Doll”). A week later, the Weekly advertised a needlework kit for three new outfits: a beach ensemble of yellow bikini and sundress, red suit with checked blouse, and blue strapless evening gown. The garment components, with indicated gathering, seam, stitching, and cutting lines, were stamped onto a piece of fine cotton. The kit also included directions “simple enough for the young beginner seamstress” (“Teenage Doll’s”). Priced at 8/6 (85¢ in the new decimal currency introduced that year) including postage, this was a considerable saving when compared to the individual Mattel-branded clothing sets which were sold for sums ranging from 13/6 to 33/6 in 1964 (Burnett). Reader demand for these kits was so high that the supplier was overwhelmed and the magazine had to print an apology regarding delays in dispatching orders (“The Weekly”). Fig. 6: Cotton printed with garments to cut out and sew together and resulting outfits from the Weekly’s “Teenage Doll’s Wardrobe” feature, 1966. This was followed by another kit offer later in the year, this time explicitly promoted to both adult and “little girl” needleworkers. Comprising “cut out, ready to sew [material pieces] ... and easy-to-follow step-by-step instructions”, this kit made an embroidered white party dress with matching slip and briefs, checked shorts and top set, and long lace and net trimmed taffeta bridesmaid dress and underclothes (“Three”). Again, at $1.60 for the kit (including postage), this was much more economical (and creative) than purchasing such outfits ready-made. Fig. 7: Party dress from “Three Lovely Outfits for Teenage Dolls” article in the Weekly, 1966. Making dolls’ clothes was an educationally sanctioned activity for girls in Australia, with needlecraft and other home economics subjects commonly taught in schools as a means of learning domestic and professionally transferable skills until the curriculum reforms of the 1970s onwards (Campbell; Cramer; Issacs). In Australia in the 1960s, Barbie dolls (and their clothing and furniture) were recommended for girls aged nine-years-old and older (Dyson), while older girls obviously also continued to interact with the dolls. A 1968 article in the Weekly, for example, praised a 13-year-old girl’s efforts in reinterpreting an adult dress pattern that had appeared in the magazine and sewing this for her Barbie (Dunstan; Forde). It was also suggested that the dolls could be used by girls who designed their own clothes but did not have a full-sized dressmaker’s model, with the advice to use a Barbie model to test a miniature of the design before making up a full-sized garment (“Buy”). Making Things for Barbie Dolls By 9 February 1966, the ‘using oddments’ contest had closed and the Weekly filled two pages with readers’ “resourceful” ideas (“Prizewinning”). These used such domestic bits and pieces as string, wire, cord, cotton reels, egg cartons, old socks, toothpicks, dried leaves, and sticky tape to create a range of Barbie accessories including a mob cap from a doily, hair rollers from cut drinking straws and rubber bands, and a suitcase from a plastic soap container with gold foil locks. A party dress and coat were fashioned from an out-of-date man’s tie and a piece of elastic. There was even a pipe cleaner dog and cardboard guitar. A month later, fifty more winning entries were published in a glossy, eight-page colour insert booklet. This included a range of clothing, accessories, and furniture which celebrated that “imagination and ingenuity, rather than dollars and cents” could equip a teen doll “for any occasion” (“50 Things”, 1). Alongside day, casual, and evening outfits, rainwear, underwear, jewellery, hats, sunglasses, footwear, a beauty case, hat boxes, and a shopping trolley and bags, readers submitted a skilfully fashioned record player with records in a stand as well as a barbeque crafted from tiny concrete blocks, sun lounge, and deckchairs. Miniature accessories included a hairdryer and lace tissue holder with tiny tissues and a skindiving set comprising mask, snorkel, and flippers. The wide variety of negligible-cost materials utilised and how these were fashioned for high effect is as interesting as the results are charming. Fig. 8: Cover of insert booklet of the entries of the 50 winners of the Weekly’s making things for Barbie from oddments competition, 1966. That women were eager to learn to make these miniature fashions and other items is evidenced by some Country Women’s Association groups holding handicraft classes on making clothes and accessories for Barbie dolls (“CWA”). That they were also eager to share the results with others is revealed in how competitions to dress teenage dolls in handmade outfits rapidly also became prominent features of Australian fetes, fairs, agricultural shows, club events, and other community fundraising activities in the 1960s (“Best”; “Bourke”; “Convent”; “Fierce”; “Frolic”; “Gala”; “Guide”; “Measles”; “Parish”; “Personal”; “Pet”; “Present”, “Purim”; “Successful”; “School Fair”; “School Fair Outstanding”; “School Fete”; “Weather”; Yennora”). Dressing Barbie joined other traditional categories such as those to dress baby, bride, national, and bed dolls (the last those dolls dressed in elaborate costumes designed as furniture decorations rather than toys). The teenage doll category at one primary school fete in rural New South Wales in 1967 was so popular that it attracted 50 entries, with many entries in this and other such competitions submitted by children (“Primary”). As the dolls became more prominent, the categories using them became more imaginative, with prizes for Barbie doll tea parties (“From”), for example. The category of dressing Barbie also became segmented with separate prizes for Barbie bride dolls, both sewn and knitted outfits (“Hobby and Pet”) and day, evening, and sports clothes (“Church”). There is no evidence from the sources surveyed that any of this making concentrated on producing career-focussed outfits for Barbie. Do-It-Yourself Ethos A do-it-yourself ethos was evident across the making discussed above. This refers to the possession of attitudes or philosophies that encourage undertaking activities or projects that involve relying on one’s own skills and resources rather than consuming mass-produced goods or using hired professionals or their services. This draws on, and develops, a sense of self-reliance and independence, and uses and enhances problem-solving skills. Creativity is central in terms of experimentation with new ideas, repurposing materials, or finding unconventional solutions to challenges. While DIY projects are often pursued independently and customised to personal preferences, makers also often collaboratively draw on, and share, expertise and resources (Wilson). It is important to note that the Weekly articles discussed above were not disguised advertorials for Barbie dolls or other Mattel products with, throughout the 1960s, the Barbies illustrated in the magazine referred to as ‘teen dolls’ or ‘teenage dolls’. However, despite this and the clear DIY ethos at work, women in Australia could, and did, make such Barbie-related items as commercial ventures. This included local artisanal dressmaking businesses that swiftly added made-to-measure Barbie doll clothes to their ranges (“Arcade”). Some enterprising women sold outfits and accessories they had made through various non-store venues including at home-based parties (“Hobbies”), in the same way as Tupperware products had been sold in Australia since 1961 (Truu). Other women sought sewing, knitting, or crocheting work specifically for Barbie doll clothes in the ‘Work wanted’ classified advertisements at this time (‘Dolls’). Conclusion This investigation has shown that the introduction of the Barbie doll unleashed more than consumer spending in Australia. Alongside purchases of the branded doll, clothes, and associated merchandise, Australians (mostly, but not exclusively, women and girls) utilised (and developed) their skills in sewing, knitting, crochet, and other crafts to make clothes for Barbie. They also displayed significant creativity and ingenuity in using domestic oddments and scraps to craft fashion accessories ranging from hats and bags to sunglasses as well as furniture and many of the other accoutrements of daily life in the second half of the 1960s in Australia. This making appears to have been prompted by a range of motivations including thrift and the real pleasures gained in crafting these miniature garments and objects. While the reception of these outfits and other items is not recorded in the publications sourced during this research, this scan of the Weekly and other publications revealed that children did love these dolls and value their wardrobes. In a description of the effects of a sudden, severe flood which affected her home south of Cairns in North Queensland, for instance, one woman described how amid the drama and terror, one little girl she knew packed up only “her teenage doll and its clothes” to take with her (Johnstone 9). The emotional connection felt to these dolls and handcrafted clothes and other objects is a rich area for research which is outside the scope of this article. Whether adult production was all ultimately intended to be gifted (or purchased) for children, or whether some was the work of early adult Barbie collectors, is also outside the scope of the research conducted for this project. As most of the evidence for this article was sourced from The Australian Women’s Weekly, a similarly close study of other magazines during the 1960s, and of whether any DIY clothing for Barbie also included career-focussed outfits, would add more information and nuance to these findings. This investigation has also concentrated on what happened in Australia during the second half of the 1960s, rather than in following decades. It has also not examined the DIY phenomenon of salvaging and refurbishing damaged Barbie dolls or otherwise altering and customising their appearance in the Australian context. These topics, as well as a full exploration of how women used Barbie dolls in their own commercial ventures, are all rich fields for further research both in terms of practice in Australia and how they were represented in popular and other media. Alongside the global outpouring of admiration for Barbie as a global icon and the success of the recent live action Barbie movie (Aguirre; Derrick), significant scholarship and other commentary have long criticised what Barbie has presented, and continues to present, to the world in terms of her body shape, race, activities, and career choices (Tulinski), as well as the pollution generated by the production and disposal of these dolls (“Feminist”; Pears). An additional line of what can be identified as resistance to the consumer-focussed commercialism of Barbie, in terms of making her clothes and accessories, seems to be connected to do-it-yourself culture. The exploration of handmade Barbie doll clothes and accessories in this article reveals, however, that what may at first appear to reflect a simple anti-commercial, frugal, ‘make do’ approach is more complex in terms of how it intersects with real people and their activities. References “50 Things to Make for Teen Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Mar. 1966: insert booklet. Aguirre, Abby. “Barbiemania!” Vogue 24 May 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 . “Arcade Sewing Centre [advertising].” The Australian Jewish News 29 Apr. 1966: 15. ‘Arona’, ed. The Practical Handywoman. Melbourne: Arbuckle, Waddell, c.1946. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. Year Book Australia 1967. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1968. . Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Warner Bros., 2023. Benson, Wendy, Robyn Christie, Robert Holden, and Catriona Quinn. Dolls’ Houses in Australia 1870–1950. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of NSW, 1999. “Best Teenage Doll.” Western Herald 28 Jul. 1967: 5. “Bourke Parents and Citizens Association.” Western Herald 10 Jun. 1966: 2. Burke, Sheridan. Sydney Quilt Stories, 1811–1970 Elizabeth Bay House. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust, 1998. Burnett, Jennifer. “The History of Barbie in Australia—The Early Years.” 2007. Reprinted in Dolls Dolls Dolls 18 Jul. 2016. 7 Apr. 2024 . “Buy a Doll.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 5 Oct. 1966: 57. Campbell, Craig. “Home Economics incl. Domestic Science, Domestic Arts and Home Science: Australia 1888–2010.” Dictionary of Educational History in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society, 18 Apr. 2022. 7 Apr. 2024 . Carter, Nanette. “Man with a Plan: Masculinity and DIY House Building in Post-War Australia.” Australasian Journal of Popular Culture 1.2 (2011): 165–80. “Church Fete a Success.” The South-East Kingston Leader 20 Nov. 1969: 1. “Convent School Fete Highly Successful.” Western Herald 3 Nov. 1967: 3. Cramer, Lorinda. Needlework and Women’s Identity in Colonial Australia. London: Bloomsbury, 2019. “CWA Query Decimals.” Port Lincoln Times 10 Mar. 1966: 16. Derrick, Ruby. “Barbie-Mania Australia.” Ad News 20 Jul. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 . “Do-It-Yourself: The New Billion-Dollar Hobby.” Time 2 Aug. 1954: cover. ‘Dolls’. “Wanted [advertising].” Port Lincoln Times 25 Aug. 1966: 27. Dunstan, Rita. “The Happy Dress.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 31 Jan. 1968: 16–17. Dyson, Lindsay. “Buying Toys for Children.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 13 Dec. 1967: 53. Elvin, Pam, and Jeff Elvin, eds. The Art of Doll Making: Australian & International, 1&2 (1994). Elvin, Pam, and Jeff Elvin, eds. The Australian Doll Artists Magazine, 1 (1993). “‘Feminist Nightmare’: Full-Size Barbie Dreamhouse Set to Open.” The Sydney Morning Herald 14 May 2013. 8 Apr. 2024 . Fletcher, Marion. Needlework in Australia: A History of the Development of Embroidery. Melbourne: Oxford UP, 1989. “Fierce Winds Knock Show Flower Entries.” Port Lincoln Times 10 Oct. 1968: 16. Forde, Ann. “A Very Happy Doll.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 20 Mar. 1968: 7. “Frolic, Pet Show at Mission.” Port Lincoln Times 27 Apr. 1967: 16. “From Port Elliot.” Victor Harbour Times 20 Jan. 1967: 6. “Gala Day Aids Salt Creek School.” The South-East Kingston Leader 15 Dec. 1966: 1. Gelber, Steven M. Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America. New York: Columbia UP, 1999. Gerber, Robin. Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Gero, Annette. Historic Australian Quilts. Sydney: Beagle P/National Trust of Australia, 2000. “Glamorous Clothes for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 24 Nov. 1965: 56–59. Green, Sue. “Knitting in Australia.” PhD. Diss. Melbourne: Swinburne U of Technology, 2018. “Guide and Brownie Doll Show and Carnival.” Western Herald 28 Jul. 1967: 1. “Hobbies Party.” The Coromandel 23 Jun. 1966: 7. “Hobby and Pet Show Aids Cubs.” Port Lincoln Times 20 Jul. 1967: 11. “Home-Made Toys in Fabric.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Dec. 1933: 41. Hosany, Sameer. “The Marketing Tricks That Have Kept Barbie’s Brand Alive for over 60 Years.” The Conversation 8 Mar. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 . Irvine, Jenny. “How to Make: Five Wigs for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 29 Dec. 1965: 12–13. ———. “New Use for Gift Hankies.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 5 Jan. 1966: 23–25. Isaacs, Jennifer. The Gentle Arts: 200 Years of Australian Women’s Domestic & Decorative Arts. Sydney: Lansdowne, 1987. Johnstone, M. “Kitchen Furniture Floated from Wall to Wall.” The Australian Women's Weekly 5 Apr. 1967: 9. Kingston, Beverley. My Wife, My Daughter and Poor Mary Ann: Women and Work in Australia. Melbourne: Nelson, 1975. Lord, Melody, ed. Vintage Knits. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2022. Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: Avon Books, 1995. “Measles Affected Doll and Toy Show.” Windsor and Richmond Gazette 22 Sep. 1965: 19. “Parish School Fete Most Successful.” Western Herald 15 Nov. 1968: 9. Pears, Alan. “In a Barbie World” The Conversation 17 Jul. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 . “Personal.” Western Herald 19 Aug. 1966: 12. “Pet Show Raises $150 For Scouts.” The Broadcaster 22 Nov. 1966: 2. “‘Present’ Problems Solved.” The Coromandel 20 Oct. 1966: 3. “Primary School Fete Raises $356.38.” The Berrigan Advocate 28 Feb. 1967: 3. “Prizewinning Teenage Doll Ideas.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Feb. 1966: 29, 31. “Purim Panto.” The Australian Jewish Herald 25 Feb. 1966: 17. “School Fair.” Western Herald 9 Jun. 1967: 4. “School Fair Outstanding Success.” Western Herald 21 Jun. 1968: 1. “School Fete.” The Biz 6 Nov. 1963: 10. Spencer, Amy. DIY: The Rise of Lo-Fi Culture. London: Marion Boyars, 2008. “Successful ‘Gala Day’ Held for Kindergarten.” The South-East Kingston Leader 7 Apr. 1966: 3. “Teenage Doll’s Wardrobe.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 26 Jan. 1966: 17. “The Doll Fell In!” The Australian Women’s Weekly 19 Jan. 1966: 2. “The Weekly Round.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Feb. 1966: 2. Thomas, Diana Mary Eva. “The Wagga Quilt in History and Literature.” The Social Fabric: Deep Local to Pan Global: Proceedings of the Textile Society of America 16th Biennial Symposium 19–23 Sep. 2018. Vancouver: Textile Society of America, 2018. 7. Apr. 2024 . “Three Lovely Outfits for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Nov. 1966: 37. Trove. National Library of Australia 2024. 7 Apr. 2024 . Truu, Maani. “The Rise and Fall of Tupperware’s Plastic Empire and the Die-Hard Fans Desperate to Save It.” ABC News 16 Apr. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 . Tulinski, Hannah. “Barbie as Cultural Compass: Embodiment, Representation, and Resistance Surrounding the World’s Most Iconized Doll.” Hons. Diss. Worchester: College of the Holy Cross, 2017. “Turn Oddments into Gay Accessories.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 19 Jan. 1966: 3. “Weather Crowns Tenth Lock Show Success.” Port Lincoln Times 29 Sep. 1966: 15. Williams, Colin C. “A Lifestyle Choice? Evaluating the Motives of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Consumers.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32.5 (2004): 270–78. ———. “Re-Thinking The Motives of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Consumers.” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18.3 (2008): 311–23. Wilson, Katherine. Tinkering: Australians Reinvent DIY Culture. Clayton: Monash UP, 2017. Wolf, Marco, and Shaun McQuitty. “Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivations and Outcomes.” Academy of Market Science Review 1 (2011): 154–70. “Yennora Pupils’ Show Results.” The Broadcaster 25 Jul. 1967: 2.

From Doll to Screen

Analyzing the Impact of Barbie Movie on the Barbie Brand

“I’m a Barbie Girl”

Play Is a Child’s Work (on Instagram)

Do-It-Yourself Barbie in 1960s Australia

To Be a Barbie Is to Perform

Is She a Feminist Icon Now? Barbie 2023 Movie and a Critique of Postfeminism

The Research on the Social Media Analytica Model Apply on Barbie Culture Influences in Society

BarbieThe Combination of Feminism and Commercial Film

Up-Cycling Barbie: “Bad Feminism” for Mixed-Up Times

Innovative Strategies in Movie Marketing: A Case Study of the Barbie Movie

Race and Orientalism in the History of Asian Barbies

The 2023 Barbie and Post-feminism: Narrative in Hollywood Movie Industry

Barbieland

Platform Rhetoric and Fan Labour as the Building Blocks of LEGO Ideas

Roblox and Meta Verch

Research on the Marketing Strategy of Barbie Based on the Chinese and German Markets

Female Empowerment in Film: The Expression of Contemporary Female Consciousness in the Movie Barbie

The Barbie Movie Collaboration

The Disney ‘Princess Bubble’ as a Cultural Influencer

THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF BARBIE IN AMERICAN DISCOURSES: NORMAN FAIRCLOUGH’S CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS