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
(Page 2 of 5)
“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.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (20)
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
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
Really interesting and well written. Would love to see some images of those original advertisements. Great timing for this article, too, with the hot summer we're having.
Posted by Daniel Berg on August 8,2012 | 12:03 PM
This is a very interesting article, but I would like to actually be able to read the adverts mentioned. The photo size is too small to make anything out.
Posted by Anna on August 7,2012 | 12:50 PM
This is so informative and also a pleasure to read. Very well written.
Posted by Jani on August 6,2012 | 03:15 PM
And the summer of 2012 is no slouch in the heat department either!
Posted by Dylann on August 5,2012 | 10:28 AM
100 years ago when antiperspirants and deodorants were introduced, breast cancer was virtually unheard of and look at the cancer statistics rates now.I can't help but believe there is a direct connection here. Women shaving their arms and putting these chemicals under their arms needs to be seriously looked at. There are safer and more natural alternatives. Ladies, think about the chemicals that you put on your body everyday. Men, breast cancer has increased for you all too. Everyone please read up on the chemicals because the life you save, could be your own. Sincerely, Leslie A. Campbell
Posted by Leslie Elstad Campbell on August 3,2012 | 11:36 PM