• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Travel
    With Us
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Air & Space
    magazine

Smithsonian.com

  • Subscribe
  • History & Archaeology
  • Science
  • Ideas & Innovations
  • Arts & Culture
  • Travel & Food
  • At the Smithsonian
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Games
  • Shop
  • Archaeology
  • U.S. History
  • World History
  • Today in History
  • Document Deep Dives
  • The Jetsons
  • National Treasures
  • Paleofuture
  • History & Archaeology

How Advertisers Convinced Americans They Smelled Bad

A schoolgirl and a former traveling Bible salesman helped turn deodorants and antiperspirants from niche toiletries into an $18 billion industry

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
  • By Sarah Everts
  • Smithsonian.com, August 03, 2012, Subscribe
View More Photos »
$Alt
(Courtesy of the author)

Photo Gallery (1/14)

Explore more photos from the story


Video Gallery

Poof! There Goes Perspiration!

More from Smithsonian.com

  • A Lucky Two Percent of People Have a Gene for Stink-Free Armpits
  • 360-Year-Old Advertisement Extolls Coffee’s Virtues

Lucky for Edna Murphey, people attending an exposition in Atlantic City during the summer of 1912 got hot and sweaty.

For two years, the high school student from Cincinnati had been trying unsuccessfully to promote an antiperspirant that her father, a surgeon, had invented to keep his hands sweat-free in the operating room.

Murphey had tried her dad’s liquid antiperspirant in her armpits, discovered that it thwarted wetness and smell, named the antiperspirant Odorono (Odor? Oh No!) and decided to start a company.

But business didn’t go well—initially—for this young entrepreneur. Borrowing $150 from her grandfather, she rented an office workshop but then had to move the operation to her parents’ basement because her team of door-to-door saleswomen didn’t pull in enough revenue. Murphey approached drugstore retailers who either refused to stock the product or who returned the bottles of Odorono back, unsold.

In the 1910s deodorants and antiperspirants were relatively new inventions. The first deodorant, which kills odor-producing bacteria, was called Mum and had been trademarked in 1888, while the first antiperspirant, which thwarts both sweat-production and bacterial growth, was called Everdry and launched in 1903.

But many people—if they had even heard of the anti-sweat toiletries—thought they were unnecessary, unhealthy or both.

“This was still very much a Victorian society,” explains Juliann Silvulka, a 20th-century historian of American advertising at Waseda Univesity in Tokyo, Japan. “Nobody talked about perspiration, or any other bodily functions in public.”

Instead, most people’s solution to body odor was to wash regularly and then to overwhelm any emerging stink with perfume. Those concerned about sweat percolating through clothing wore dress shields, cotton or rubber pads placed in armpit areas which protected fabric from the floods of perspiration on a hot day.

Yet 100 years later, the deodorant and antiperspirant industry is worth $18 billion. The transformation from niche invention to a blockbuster product was in part kick-started by Murphey, whose nascent business was nearly a failure.

According to Odorono company files at Duke University, Edna Murphey’s Odorono booth at the 1912 Atlantic City exposition initially appeared to be another bust for the product.


Lucky for Edna Murphey, people attending an exposition in Atlantic City during the summer of 1912 got hot and sweaty.

For two years, the high school student from Cincinnati had been trying unsuccessfully to promote an antiperspirant that her father, a surgeon, had invented to keep his hands sweat-free in the operating room.

Murphey had tried her dad’s liquid antiperspirant in her armpits, discovered that it thwarted wetness and smell, named the antiperspirant Odorono (Odor? Oh No!) and decided to start a company.

But business didn’t go well—initially—for this young entrepreneur. Borrowing $150 from her grandfather, she rented an office workshop but then had to move the operation to her parents’ basement because her team of door-to-door saleswomen didn’t pull in enough revenue. Murphey approached drugstore retailers who either refused to stock the product or who returned the bottles of Odorono back, unsold.

In the 1910s deodorants and antiperspirants were relatively new inventions. The first deodorant, which kills odor-producing bacteria, was called Mum and had been trademarked in 1888, while the first antiperspirant, which thwarts both sweat-production and bacterial growth, was called Everdry and launched in 1903.

But many people—if they had even heard of the anti-sweat toiletries—thought they were unnecessary, unhealthy or both.

“This was still very much a Victorian society,” explains Juliann Silvulka, a 20th-century historian of American advertising at Waseda Univesity in Tokyo, Japan. “Nobody talked about perspiration, or any other bodily functions in public.”

Instead, most people’s solution to body odor was to wash regularly and then to overwhelm any emerging stink with perfume. Those concerned about sweat percolating through clothing wore dress shields, cotton or rubber pads placed in armpit areas which protected fabric from the floods of perspiration on a hot day.

Yet 100 years later, the deodorant and antiperspirant industry is worth $18 billion. The transformation from niche invention to a blockbuster product was in part kick-started by Murphey, whose nascent business was nearly a failure.

According to Odorono company files at Duke University, Edna Murphey’s Odorono booth at the 1912 Atlantic City exposition initially appeared to be another bust for the product.

“The exhibition demonstrator could not sell any Odorono at first and wired back [to Murphey to send some] cold cream to cover expenses,” notes a company history of Odorono. 

Luckily, the exposition lasted all summer. As attendees wilted in the heat and sweat through their clothing, interest in Odorono rose. Suddenly Murphey had customers across the country and $30,000 in sales to spend on promotion.

And in reality, Odorono needed some serious help in the marketing department.

Although the product stopped sweat for up to three days—longer-lasting than modern day antiperspirants—the Odorono’s active ingredient, aluminum chloride, had to be suspended in acid to remain effective. (This was the case for all early antiperspirants; it would take a few decades before chemists came up with a formulation that didn’t require an acid suspension.)

The acid solution meant Odorono could irritate sensitive armpit skin and damage clothing. Adding insult to injury, the antiperspirant was also red-colored, so it could also stain clothing—if the acid didn’t eat right through it first. According to company records, customers complained that the product caused burning and inflammation in armpits and that it ruined many a fancy outfit, including one woman’s wedding dress.

To avoid these problems, Odorono customers were advised to avoid shaving prior to use and to swab the product into armpits before bed, allowing time for the antiperspirant to dry thoroughly.

(Deodorants of the era didn’t have the problems with acid formulations, but many, such as Odorono’s main competitor, Mum, were sold as creams which users had to rub into their armpits—an application process many users did not like and which could leave sticky, greasy residues on clothing. In addition, some customers complained that Mum’s early formulation had a peculiar smell.)

Murphey decided to hire a New York advertising agency called J. Walter Thompson Company, who paired her with James Young, a copy writer hired in 1912 to launch the company’s Cincinnati office, where Murphey lived.

Young had once been a door-to-door Bible salesman. He had a high school diploma but no advertising training. He got the copywriter job in 1912 through a childhood friend from Kentucky, who was dating Stanley Resor, a JWT manager who would eventually lead the advertising company. Yet Young would become one of the most famous advertising copy writers of the 20th century, using Odorono as his launching pad.

Young’s early Odorono advertisements focused on trying to combat a commonly held belief that blocking perspiration was unhealthy. The copy pointed out that Odorono (occasionally written Odo-ro-no) had been developed by a doctor and it presented “excessive perspiration” as an embarrassing medical ailment in need of a remedy.

Within a year Odorono sales had jumped to $65,000 and the antiperspirant was being shipped as far as England and Cuba. But after a few years sales had flattened, and by 1919 Young was under pressure to do something different or lose the Odorono contract.

And that’s when Young went radical, and in doing so launched his own fame. A door-to-door survey conducted by the advertising company had revealed that “every woman knew of Odorono and about one-third used the product. But two thirds felt they had no need for [it],” Sivulka says.

Young realized that improving sales wasn’t a simple matter of making potential customers aware that a remedy for perspiration existed. It was about convincing two-thirds of the target population that sweating was a serious embarrassment.

Young decided to present perspiration as a social faux pas that nobody would directly tell you was responsible for your unpopularity, but which they were happy to gossip behind your back about.

His advertisement in a 1919 edition of the Ladies Home Journal didn’t beat around the bush. “Within the Curve of a Woman’s arm. A frank discussion of a subject too often avoided,” announced the headline above an image of an imminently romantic situation between a man and a woman.

Reading more like a lyrical public service announcement than an advert, Young continued:

A woman’s arm! Poets have sung of it, great artists have painted its beauty. It should be the daintiest, sweetest thing in the world. And yet, unfortunately, it’s isn’t always.

The advertisement goes on to explain that women may be stinky and offensive, and they might not even know it. The take-home message was clear: If you want to keep a man, you’d better not smell.

The advertisement caused shock waves in a 1919 society that still didn’t feel comfortable mentioning bodily fluids. Some 200 Ladies Home Journal readers were so insulted by the advertisement that they canceled their magazine subscription, Sivulka says.

In a memoir, Young notes that women in his social circle stopped speaking to him, while other JWT female copy writers told him “he had insulted every woman in America.” But the strategy worked. According to JWT archives, Odorono sales rose 112 percent to $417,000 in 1920, the following year.

By 1927, Murphey saw her company’s sales reach $1 million dollars. In 1929, she sold the company to Northam Warren, the makers of Cutex, who continued using the services of JWT and Young to promote the antiperspirant.

The financial success of Young’s strategy to exploit female insecurity was not lost on competitors. It didn’t take long before other deodorant and antiperspirant companies began to mimic Odorono’s so-called “whisper copy,” to scare women into buying anti-sweat products. (It would take another decade or two before the strategy would be used to get men to buy deodorants and antiperspirants.)

If the 1919 advertisement seemed extreme to some, by the mid 1930s, campaigns were substantially less subtle. “Beautiful but dumb. She has never learned the first rule of long lasting charm,” reads one 1939 Odorono headline, which depicts a morose yet attractive woman who does not wear the anti-sweat product.

Or consider the 1937 Mum advertisement that speaks to a fictitious woman who does not use deodorant:

You’re a pretty girl, Mary, and you’re smart about most things but you’re just a bit stupid about yourself. You love a good time—but you seldom have one. Evening after evening you sit at home alone. You’ve met several grand men who seemed interested at first. They took you out once—and that was that. There are so many pretty Marys in the world who never seem to sense the real reason for their aloneness. In this smart modern age, it’s against the code for a girl (or a man either) to carry the repellent odor of underarm perspiration on clothing and person. It’s a fault which never fails to carry its own punishment—unpopularity.

The reference to men in the Mum advertisement is a pretty quintessential example of the tentative steps taken by deodorant and antiperspirant companies to begin selling their anti-sweat products to men.

At the beginning of the 20th century, body odor was not considered a problem for men because it was a part of being masculine, explains Cari Casteel, a history doctoral student at Auburn University, who is writing her dissertation on the advertisement of deodorants and antiperspirants to men. “But then companies realized that 50 percent of the market was not using their products.”

Initially copy writers for Odorno, Mum and other products “began adding snarky comments at the end of advertisements targeted to women saying, ‘Women, it’s time to stop letting your men be smelly. When you buy, buy two,’” Casteel says.

A 1928 survey of JWT’s male employees is revealing about that era’s opinions of deodorants and antiperspirants.

“I consider a body deodorant for masculine use to be sissified,” notes one responder. “I like to rub my body in pure grain alcohol after a bath but do not do so regularly,” asserts another.

However the potential profit was not lost on everybody:  “I feel there is a market for deodorants among men that is practically unscratched. The copy approach is always directed at women. Why not an intelligent campaign in a leading men’s magazine?”

“If someone like Mennen’s got out a deodorant, men would buy it. Present preparations have a feminine association most men only shy at.”

According to Casteels research, the first deodorant for men was launched in 1935, put in black bottle and called Top-Flite, like the modern, but unrelated golf ball brand.

As with the products for women, advertisers preyed on men’s insecurities: In the Great Depression of the 1930s men were worried about losing their job.  Advertisements focused on the embarrassment of being stinky in the office, and how unprofessional grooming could foil your career, she says.

 “The Depression shifted the roles of men,” Casteel says. “Men who had been farmers or laborers had lost their masculinity by losing their jobs. Top Flite offered a way to become masculine instantly—or so the advertisement said.” To do so, the products had to distance themselves from their origins as a female toiletry.

For example, Sea-Forth, a deodorant sold in ceramic whiskey jugs starting in the 1940s, “because the company owner Alfred McKelvy said he ‘couldn’t think of anything more manly than whiskey,’” Casteel says.

And so anti-sweat products became a part of America’s daily grooming routine for both men and women. A multitude of products flooded the marketplace, with names like, Shun, Hush, Veto, NonSpi, Dainty Dry, Slick, Perstop and Zip—to name just a few. With more companies invested in anti-sweat technology, the decades between 1940 and 1970 saw the development of new delivery systems, such as sticks, roll-ons (based on the ball-point pen), sprays and aerosols, as well as a bounty of newer, sometimes safer, formulations.

Naysayers might argue that western society would have eventually developed its dependence on deodorants and antiperspirants without Murphey and Young, but they certainly left their mark in the armpits of America, as did the heat of New Jersey’s summer of 1912.


Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.


Related topics: Marketing 1910s


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (20)

+ View All Comments

I'd suggest trying Lavilin! I do a lot of triathlons and usually train 5-6 days a week. I’m not a particularly smelly person, but given all the running, biking, and swimming I do, Lavilin works really effectively. It’s waterproof, so even though I swim 6 days a week and shower twice a day, the deodorant still lasts up to a week!

Posted by Catherine on April 30,2013 | 01:53 PM

Great article - thanks so much. James Webb Young is an interesting figure in advertising. I like in this case that he employed the still relatively young practice of market research to come up with the insight that drove Odorono's advertising copy. Young has been given credit for the development of the testimonial ad, the money-back guarantee and the coupon (but I have seen evidence of all three long before the 20th Century). I do like his attempt at articulating a creative process: 1. Immersion 2. Digestion 3. Incubation 4. Illumination 5. Reality or verification Thanks to the Smithsonian for sharing content such as this. Cheers

Posted by Jeff Swystun on November 20,2012 | 06:17 PM

One of the best inventions of the 20th century. I'm sure everybody has had a coworker with B.O. who gets all offended if someone mentions it. Also, the walking stink-bombs who cheerfully say they use it because they don't need it. The smell isn't caused by sweat, but it's the excretions and dead carcass' of bacteria which feed on the dead layers of skin and the nutrients which are present in the sweat. It's gross and while people may think it's "natural", which of course it is, it is a major turn off. Yes, even with a macro-biotic, tofu, raw vegetables diet, you still stink. The term, "Smelly Hippies" is true. I was there then and I know Deadheads who still won't get with the program.

Posted by Guglielmo Boogliodemus on August 23,2012 | 12:56 AM

I'd just like to point out that Japan doesn't really sell stick deodorant and you can tell with your nose when you're packed into the trains with everyone else. Don't know how stinky I am naturally, but would not give up my American products while I'm living here in Tokyo :)

Posted by Paul on August 21,2012 | 11:16 AM

Ms Campbell, you are wrong about breast cancer rates. It was known to exist for centuries, and not as a rarity. Did you not even see the miniseries about John Adams in which one of his blood kin received a primitive radical mastectomy because she had breast cancer? It wasn't that rare. As for the chemicals, there have been so many introduced in the world, blaming antiperspirant alone doesn't make much sense.

Posted by Brenda on August 20,2012 | 12:32 AM

"Yet 100 years later, the deodorant and antiperspirant industry is worth $18 billion." No, the industry isn't WORTH $18 billion. It COSTS $18 billion, a price paid by fools.

Posted by Sleeps With Cats on August 20,2012 | 09:44 PM

100 years ago when antiperspirants and deodorants were introduced, breast cancer was virtually unheard of Unfortunately, not true. Breast cancer may be one of the oldest known forms of cancerous tumors in humans. The oldest description of cancer was discovered in Egypt and dates back to approximately 1600 BC. The French surgeon Jean Louis Petit (1674–1750) and later the Scottish surgeon Benjamin Bell (1749–1806) were the first to remove the lymph nodes, breast tissue, and underlying chest muscle. Their successful work was carried on by William Stewart Halsted who started performing mastectomies in 1882. Prominent women who died of breast cancer include Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian; Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV of France; Mary Washington, mother of George http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Breast-Cancer.aspx And for a very personal and harrowing account: http://newjacksonianblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/breast-cancer-in-1811-fanny-burneys.html

Posted by Susan811 on August 20,2012 | 08:16 PM

I have ridden crowded buses in less developed countries on hot days and not really noticed odor. If you notice people's odors, maybe you need a life.

Posted by Steve D on August 20,2012 | 07:47 PM

I prefer being odoriferous since a male is socially allowed to smell not-so-fresh and I revel in seldom being stuck in a lengthy line waiting for whatever. A few sniffs and those around me tend to disappear, akin to a reed sea opening wide to allow the passage of a lone chap.

Posted by Obbop on August 20,2012 | 07:43 PM

If people were dousing their "emerging stink with perfume", didn't they already believe they smelled bad?

Posted by Jamoche on August 14,2012 | 04:47 PM

"The advertisement caused shock waves in a 1919 society that still didn’t feel comfortable mentioning bodily fluids. Some 200 Ladies Home Journal readers were so insulted by the advertisement that they canceled their magazine subscription, Sivulka says." This suggestion that the reaction was simple prudery "because it was Victorian times" seems to go against the main thrust (and title) of this article, that the women *were* being manipulated and when you come right down to it, insulted. There is no need for these products in most clean people, with some exceptions of course. Maybe the women that are presented as being prudish really were insulted.

Posted by Isabel on August 12,2012 | 11:41 PM

The truly unforgivable advertising ploy? "Intimate" deodorants. Remember the ads? "That'not-so-fresh'feeling?" Preying upon womens'insecurities. For shame.

Posted by on August 12,2012 | 06:12 PM

To Anna, about the size of the advertisements: Use the zoom function on your browser. I did, they're worth the read. :)

Posted by just2say on August 11,2012 | 01:38 AM

Absolutely fascinating to read how the team went about creating the need for deodorants.

Posted by Anthony James on August 11,2012 | 01:35 PM

+ View All Comments



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  1. Myths of the American Revolution
  2. For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of WWII
  3. Seven Famous People Who Missed the Titanic
  4. Women Spies of the Civil War
  5. A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials
  6. The History of the Short-Lived Independent Republic of Florida
  7. We Had No Idea What Alexander Graham Bell Sounded Like. Until Now
  8. Tattoos
  9. Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?
  10. The True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill
  1. For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of WWII
  1. Women Spies of the Civil War
  2. Looking at the Battle of Gettysburg Through Robert E. Lee’s Eyes
  3. Seven Famous People Who Missed the Titanic
  4. The Space Race
  5. Document Deep Dive: The Heartfelt Friendship Between Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey
  6. New Light on Stonehenge
  7. The Freedom Riders, Then and Now
  8. The Women Who Fought in the Civil War
  9. The Great New England Vampire Panic

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement

Follow Us

Smithsonian Magazine
@SmithsonianMag
Follow Smithsonian Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

In The Magazine

May 2013

  • Patriot Games
  • The Next Revolution
  • Blowing Up The Art World
  • The Body Eclectic
  • Microbe Hunters

View Table of Contents »






First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store

Stars and Stripes Throw

Our exclusive Stars and Stripes Throw is a three-layer adaption of the 1861 “Stars and Stripes” quilt... $65



View full archiveRecent Issues


  • May 2013


  • Apr 2013


  • Mar 2013

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Smithsonian
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution