Thursday Night Good Housekeeping

Time for a trip in the wayback machine to September, 1954, when Good Housekeeping cost .35c and children with rosy cheeks were on the covers of national magazines.

Hamilton ad; click through to read full image scription, including transcription of text.
Hamilton ad; click through to read full image description, including transcription of text.

Clearly aimed at laundry converts. And I hate doing laundry, so, you know. If I could fit a washer and dryer in my house I would sit around in pedal pushers while I did the laundry too.

Whirlpool washer ad; click through to read a full description, including transcription of text.
Whirlpool washer ad; click through to read a full description, including transcription of text.

Another washer ad. This one I find interesting because I am used to thinking of the 1950s as a kind of profligate era when no one thought about the environment, and this ad heavily stresses saving water. (Possibly from a moneysaving perspective rather than an environmental one, though.) I was also intrigued by the reference to “delicate modern fabrics,” since I thought the whole point of modern fabrics was to avoid the delicacy issue.

Johnson and Johnsons Baby Shampoo ad; click through to read a description, including a transcript of the text
Johnson and Johnson's Baby Shampoo ad; click through to read a description, including a transcript of the text

You can use this on babies in addition to cats? I’ll have to keep that in mind.

4 Replies to “Thursday Night Good Housekeeping”

  1. Aside from both environmental and financial concerns, do remember the 1950s was coming right out of the war era, where conservation of all strategic resources – metal, water, food, gasoline, electricity – was taken as a matter of course. The mentality was waning then, but I suspect was still active enough to be used as an advertising strategy.

  2. Right, I think I’ve been watching too much Mad Men, so I am in the mindset of 1960s profligacy. Waste it! Waste more!

  3. I’ve never been able to wedge myself into one in a way which makes sense. But, I guess that’s bodily variation for you; people somewhere must fit in them and like ’em, because they sure are popular!

Comments are closed.