Barbie dominated social media on Thursday, after Mattel took the wraps off the doll’s expanded Fashionistas line, which features three new body types — tall, curvy, and petite — and seven skin tones.
It’s obvious what Mattel is trying to do with this evolution: reflect a broader view of beauty with diverse body types and ethnicities. And parents might be inspired by the news and buy the new dolls. But will kids really, truly want them?
Barbie gave the exclusive about the new dolls to Time magazine on Thursday and landed the cover of its latest issue. But the publication did not shy away from pointing out several concerns, including the fact that focus groups of children called the doll "fat" and some even "snickered" at Barbie’s curves.
Read: Four brands that should follow Barbie's lead
Mattel argued in the article that this is one of the reasons behind the new Barbie designs: to change the idea of what beauty is and foster inclusivity among youth. But will that change happen fast enough to benefit Mattel’s bottom line? After all, Barbie sales dropped 20% from 2012 to 2014 and fell last year.
And where does Mattel draw the line with being inclusive? The new dolls opened Barbie up to criticism on social media on who the company is still leaving out.
But what about wheelchair Barbie and vegan Barbie and Barbie that identifies as Ken Barbie and Lesbian Barbie and Equal pay Barbie and..
— ¯\_(?)_/¯ (@SupJess__) January 28, 2016
A number of Twitter users and even some celebrities posted about their disdain for the new dolls. Some noted that the curvy Barbie in particular is sending the wrong message – that "being overweight is OK."
Are we seriously going to imply that BARBIE needs to be taken seriously? Jeez bring back 1965 where BARBIE just looked like freak
— Kirstie Alley (@kirstiealley) January 28, 2016
Agreed. The new #Barbie thing is just wrong. https://t.co/7M1JymoYYV
— Ella Valentinova (@EllaValeree) January 28, 2016
Terribly gone wrong. Why can't they all just be "Barbies" instead point out their body type as a central feature? https://t.co/wcVclwUmvZ
— Krake (@Fotografiona) January 28, 2016
No matter what shape @Barbie is, it's is still a hyper-sexualized physical replica of an adult woman's body. Stop pretending it's feminist!
— Jena Friedman (@JenaFriedman) January 28, 2016
I wonder if they'll make a Ken doll with a beer belly. #barbiegotback #Barbie
— Michael Holloway (@mjdholloway) January 28, 2016
Some media outlets were also suspect of Mattel’s motives. The Guardian ran a blog stating that the doll’s new body types are "a ploy to save the brand, not represent its customers."
Time also warned that the new dolls could erase Barbie’s brand recognition and status as an icon. And to add more fuel to the fire, the article also mentioned that Barbie might be too "late to the game," with its evolution.
Regardless, the new dolls largely received a fanfare of supportive press on Thursday, with publications such as People and Huffington Post calling the makeover "positive" and "groundbreaking."
@Barbie #TheDollEvolves You are finally back in the "know" building positive esteem for children everywhere
— Rebecca Bertoux (@vampit1) January 28, 2016
Pretty happy about the new #Barbie. I love when markets voluntarily drive change and perception in a positive way https://t.co/sW32KytuMG
— Libertarian Girl (@mariannecope) January 28, 2016
@JenWesthoven @Barbie @TIME as a father of four daughters, I feel that this is a positive step. Also increased wardrobe revenue for Mattel
— Joseph Ford (@Jbfsalespro) January 28, 2016
Social media commentary on Thursday was also primarily in favor of the new Barbie body types.
At the end of the day, there is no denying this is a risky, noble move on Mattel’s part. But it remains to be seen if Barbie can get and keep children’s attention, and if the new Barbie designs really change the way beauty is defined.
This article first appeared on prweek.com.