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
- By Sarah Everts
- Smithsonian.com, August 03, 2012, Subscribe
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.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (19)
+ View All Comments
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
This is not an example of advertising creating a "need" that doesn't exist. Perfume, after all, goes back as far as we have written history; and for most of that time, among other things, the streets were full of horse manure, and frequent bathing was either infeasible for most people, or seen as weird, or both. Under those conditions I, too, would want a perfumed hanky.
Posted by John David Galt on August 8,2012 | 02:08 PM
+ View All Comments