Last spring, I was given the most unique assignment in my graduate school education:  visit the Hasbro board game factory in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts.  The factory, a maker of many beloved games, is a place of colorful aspiration. Gleaming red tiny houses, ready to mark your real estate, tumble out of sorting machines into plastic bags. Rolls of pink, green, blue and golden yellow paper wait to be cut into Monopoly money that will make your fortune. Bright glossy cards that will determine your career are methodically shaped by die-cutters. Game of Life boards are stacked up as high as my chest, a multi-color bonanza blazing a pathway of life’s possibilities. Yet amongst the color and glee, there is an unsettling feeling. It’s all too quiet in this factory– not a quiet due to low-noise machines, but a quiet that suggests this factory is not as busy as it once was, or even now, should be.

Brown graduate students pose with historic versions of The Game of Life at the Hasbro Archives. From left: Emily Bryant (author), Emily McCartan, and Anna Wada.

The past three years have marked a significant downward trend in the sales of board games. At Hasbro, the country’s biggest board game manufacturer, volume has declined considerably and the number of factory employees has decreased. The culprit (perhaps not hard to guess) is digital games, as people forgo folding cardboard games for foxy game apps on their phones, computers, and gaming systems. $15.9 billion of revenue in digital game software and content was generated in 2010, which includes downloads of full video games as well as social games. Compare this to the $1.17 billion in revenue for Hasbro’s Games & Puzzles category in 2011– a ten percent drop from their sales the year before. Yet board game companies adapt, and Hasbro is trying to stay relevant.  Hollywood is one way; did you see the movie Battleship?  Monopoly the movie is in script-writing phase.  Another way embraces the digital, and many board games now have “zAPPed” editions, an “app-enhanced” game that integrates the popularity of digital apps with traditional board game play.  Hasbro also has a new strategic partnership with Zynga, the maker of popular digital social games like Farmville and Words with Friends, and wants to create co-branded merchandise.

Hasbro’s new, “zAPPed” editions of Life and Monopoly integrate with Apple iOS devices like the iPad. Photo courtesy of Business Wire.

Board games and video games have a shared history. The Magnavox Odyssey Video Game Unit (1972), one of the first home video game systems, came pre-packaged with physical accessories such as dice, decks of cards, play money, and poker chips.

Still, the experience of a digital game is inherently at odds with one of a traditional board game. When given a choice, would you play an Angry Birds board game over the digital one? Board games require an amount of time set aside to play, and at least two people. They also take up physical space, and require that those two people be in the same space to play. On your phone or tablet however, the game is instantly accessible. It is portable and played independently, for as little or as long as you’d like. When you tire of it, there’s another multitude of games you can immediately switch to. For a modern age, the decision of board game or digital game seems like a no-brainer.

Before electronic devices, Americans found ways to play board games on the move. In this 1956 photo, two Bracero workers sit outside and play checkers at a camp in California.

But that’s what board game companies want to change. They want to remind us of the benefits of playing a bona-fide board game. It’s social interaction they are selling, not the plastic bits and pieces. Sprawled out on the rug or seated intently around a table, playing board games is where bonds are formed and a mutual experience is created. Hasbro in particular adheres to this message, and their website includes a section called “Host your Own Family Game Night,” where visitors can find game recommendations, tournament brackets, tips and recipes. “Laughter, family bonding, learning and life skills,” are gained from family gaming, the website states. In a project where we’ve been asked to look at board games that teach us about business, perhaps the game’s content is not the sole instructor. The critical learning comes from the interactions with those you are playing with.

Sources

Braden, Donna. “The Family that Plays Together Stays Together: Family Pastimes and Indoor Amusements, 1890-1930.” In American Home Life, 1880-1930. Foy, Jessica and Thomas Schlereth, ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992.

Digital game sales statistics from marketing research company The NPD Group and The Entertainment Software Association
http://www.theesa.com/facts/salesandgenre.asp

Hasbro Games and Puzzle sales statistics from Hasbro Corporate Information Financial Press Releases: http://investor.hasbro.com/releases.cfm?ReleasesType=Quarterly+Financials&Year=

Family Game Night
http://www.hasbro.com/games/en_US/familygamenight/

zAPPEd editions
http://investor.hasbro.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=647883

Hollywood
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ridley-scotts-monopoly-movie-hires-229944

Partnership with Zynga
http://investor.hasbro.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=647693

How do you become successful as a toy inventor? Reuben Klamer, who developed the 1960 Game of Life, suggests inspiration, perseverance, serendipity, and a good sense of humor. Serendipity refers to his chance encounter with the “Checkered Game of Life” in the archives of the Milton Bradley Company, one day after he was tasked to create a new game for the company’s centennial celebration. While he did not open the dusty contents of the box, he was “electrified – by the word ‘life.’ It occurred to me that the word ‘life’ would be a valuable name for a new game concept.” Thus was the Game of Life invented.

This was not the first time that someone had developed a game about life, however. As Jill Lepore points out in her New Yorker article, the “New Game of Human Life” was printed in England by the 1720s, a game based on the Christian notion that “life is a voyage in which travellers are buffeted between vice and virtue.” Milton Bradley then published The Checkered Game of Life in 1860. An instructional game based on Puritan ethics, the winners were players who reached a Happy Old Age through leading a virtuous life.

Checkered Game of Life Image © The Strong Museum.

Another publisher, Selchow & Righter, published a game titled “Stepping Stones: The Game of Life” in 1920. The rulebook points out, “Where is there a Real American Boy who does not wish to do big things – to make a success of his life – when he grows up so that his Mother and Father will be proud of him?” For this Game of Life, the goal was to climb the corporate ladder and earn a place in the President’s Office.

“Stepping Stones: The Game of Life.” Image courtesy of the Hasbro Archives.

The Checkered Game of Life was eventually removed from the market, its Puritan morals perhaps too “preachy” and outdated for a society centered on capitalistic values. Still, its title inspired Reuben Klamer to come up with the revamped 1960s version of the Game of Life. Its goal was closer to that of Monopoly: to bankrupt other players and emerge as a millionaire tycoon. Although tactical decisions and the revenge feature determine smaller successes and failures along the way, everything ultimately depends on luck with the spinner, the Wheel of Fate.

“The 1960 Game of Life.” Image © The Strong Museum.

At a time when television was an affordable and popular source of entertainment in the U.S., Klamer knew the game had to be visually appealing in television advertisements. Artist Bill Markham, who worked under Reuben Klamer at the time, helped create a prototype based on Klamer’s ideas for a three-dimensional, circuitous game track with a spinner. This became the first three-dimensional board game made in plastic, and the two filed a patent for it in 1960.

Klamer, with his background in engineering and marketing, further advised the company on working with plastic and reducing production costs, and came up with a promotional plan featuring the popular TV personality Art Linkletter. This helped pave the way for one of the first paid television commercials in the game industry (an early example from the 1960s is up on YouTube). Klamer still owns the rights to the Game of Life today, and must approve all revisions.

Today, there are 26 international language editions of Life produced in 59 different countries. The only localized version is the Japanese edition (Jinsei Ge-mu), which makes references to current events and customs unique to Japanese life, such as New Year’s celebrations, an imperial wedding, going on a hot-spring tour, holding a concert at the Tokyo Dome, even buying a nuclear bomb shelter on sale. The Takara Tomy Company, which distributes the game today, speculates that the original popularity of the game grew from its representation of the American Dream – in the 1960s, American life was idolized among the Japanese as symbolic of wealth and success.

Invention does not necessarily begin from a blank slate. Life has been re-invented many times, reshaped to fit cultural peculiarities and changing attitudes towards success. Drastic changes have been made to the Game of Life over the years, unlike Monopoly, whose iconography and overarching goal has remained consistent since 1935. Inventors may find inspiration from past games, innovate existing concepts, imagine new designs to help convey them, and devise new marketing strategies for the appropriate audience. As the playing field for the games business increasingly centers on digital games and the global marketplace, the next inventors of the Game of Life may be well on their way. What you need is to balance skill, strategy, and a good bit of luck.

Sources:

Andrews, Peter. “Games People Played.” American Heritage Vol 23-4, 1972

Couzin, Mary. “Reuben Klamer on Success, Careers and The Game of Life.” Global Toy  News. June 17, 2011.

Jensen, Jennifer. “Teaching Success Through Play: American Board And Table Games, 1840-1900.” Magazine Antiques, December 2001.

Klamer, Reuben. The Game of Life: An Inventor’s Chronicle. Hasbro/Milton Bradley Special Edition, 2010.

Lepore, Jill. “The Meaning of Life.” The New Yorker, 21 May 2007.
Walsh, Tim. Timeless Toys: Classic Toys And the Playmakers Who Created Them. Missouri: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2005.

Whitehill, Bruce. Games: American Boxed Games and their Makers 1822-1992. Pennsylvania: Wallace-Homestead Book Company, 1992.

“What’s Jinsei Game.” Takara Tomy.

~ Jane and Ellen Gordon, What We Saw at Madame World’s Fair: Letters from Twins at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, 1915

Postcard advertising the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. In the foreground, an iconic California Grizzly bear looks down on San Fransisco, where earthquake-wrecked ruins give way to new buildings in the city’s center. At the bottom corners of the card, viewers can see small sketches of the PPIE at night. Image reproduced courtesy of the Library of Congress

Words may be insufficient to describe the wonder and amazement visitors felt when they came to the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition (PPIE) held in San Francisco in 1915. Featuring the Tower of Jewels decorated with thousands of glass jewels that shone with an array colors, an unprecedented lighting system (the first to use “shadow” lighting), as well as sculptures and other works of art from twenty-nine foreign nations, the exposition was one of the last great world’s fairs before world war disrupted future events. But among the colorful spectacles of the exposition, it was the small things on display turned out to have the most lasting changes upon America.

The 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition was organized to celebrate the completion of the Panama Canal; at the same time, the host city of San Francisco was also celebrating its recovery from a devastating earthquake in 1906. Although World War I began a year before, the PPIE was able to have many foreign nations participate, each of which brought with them a cultural showcase of objects and artifacts. One of the objects that China’s representatives brought over in their display was a small case of soybeans. Although the PPIE was a dazzling showcase of artistic achievement, it would be much smaller items – such as this small case of soybeans – that indicated more subtle changes in domestic and international economic relationships.

World’s fairs were not just events where nations presented their cultural heritage and newest advancements in technology; they were places to scope out and establish an economic relationship with potential trade partners. As countries began to industrialize, it became easier for products to be created and transported farther distances without damage or spoiling, allowing more nations to be part of the globalized trade network. The PPIE was no exception. For both the US and China, it was an audition of sorts. For San Francisco, it was an opportunity to prove itself fully recovered from the earthquake and, as a port city, a suitable trade destination for the global economy. For China, it was an opportunity to show that it had developed enough for other industrialized powers to consider them a potential partner in future economic relationships.

The cover of this 1915 postcard showcases the Palace of Fine Arts, a building constructed for the exposition.The Palace of Fine Arts is one of the few remnants of the PPIE that can still be found in modern day San Fransisco.

The soybeans themselves meant different things to the US and China. Americans saw the soybeans as agricultural innovation, a new addition that would allow them to compete against foreign exports and increase their control of the market with their own domestic soybean crop. For the Chinese, providing the soybeans was their way to establish themselves as equals within the global community and help further economic globalization.

An aerial view of the world’s fair that highlights some of the PPIE’s signature attractions, such as the Palace of Fine Arts, the Tower of Jewels, and the Court of the Universe. Image reproduced courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Although the breakout of World War I temporarily halted the further spread of globalization, soybeans themselves continued to become a part of US agriculture. Within a decade, the amount of acreage used for soybeans nearly tripled, and today, soybeans are the second-largest export for the US. This development shows how opportunities for new business can sprout from unlikely displays and exhibitions, and how new innovations in agricultural technology can allow countries to take advantage of such opportunities to compete in an expanding globalizing market.

An early self-portrait of inventor and businessman Robert Cornelius, taken in 1838. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Robert Cornelius struck a casual pose as he looked into the bright sunlight and took a picture of himself. In our digital age, self-portraits are literally taken a million times every day. But Robert Cornelius had to stare motionless for over five minutes when he took his own picture in October or November of 1838. It was possibly the first time anyone had ever done this. Cornelius soon opened one of the first photographic studios in the world and took portraits of wealthy customers and friends. Only a couple dozen or so of his pictures have survived, because Cornelius returned to his father’s lamp-making business after two years.

It was a time of great innovation in lighting. Whale oil was widely-used as fuel, but gaslights were starting to become popular and a recent invention in England called the “solar lamp” allowed cheap lard oil to be burned in fine lamps. In 1843, Cornelius applied for a U.S. patent on a version of a solar lamp. His application included two models to demonstrate his invention and he was granted a patent on April 6, 1843. At a time when whale oil was becoming more and more expensive, Cornelius lamps could burn not only refined lard oil, but also solid lard and even kitchen grease.

Dan Mattausch, author, with Robert Cornelius’s 1843 patent model for a solar lamp, part of the collections at the National Museum of American History.

Over the next two decades, Cornelius micro-managed the family business, Cornelius & Co. (later Cornelius & Baker) to become the largest lighting company in America. Cornelius solar lamps and gaslights were sold all over the world and were produced in two huge Philadelphia factories. At the same time, Cornelius continued inventing, receiving patents that included several for lighting gaslights with electric-sparks.

Details of Cornelius’ historic 1855 Kerosene lamp.

Commerce is dynamic and today’s sensation is always in danger of being tomorrow’s outdated buggy-whip. Cornelius must have known this, because on April 1, 1855, he risked much of his business on a new lamp that, if successful, would turn his lucrative solar lamps into relics. On this date Cornelius presented the first lamp designed to burn a brand new fuel recently named “Kerosene.” Kerosene was even cheaper than lard oil and more convenient to use. Four years later, when oil was discovered in Pennsylvania, Kerosene became the dominant lighting fuel almost overnight.

A portrait of Robert Cornelius as the retired “Grand Old Man” of American lighting.

Cornelius seemed to be perfectly positioned to take his company to new heights, but technical innovation is often unpredictable. An obscure Swiss-American immigrant named Johann Stuber invented an extremely cheap burner that could be used on existing lamps to burn Kerosene. The Cornelius lamps cost at least 14 times more and couldn’t compete. A few years later, Cornelius patented a similar cheap burner, but it was too late. Although Cornelius retired in the mid-1860s and lived many years as a wealthy man, his once dominant firm was rapidly overtaken by other companies, a dramatic example of the rise and fall of industries in an ever-changing marketplace.

Ten years ago GEICO wasn’t nearly the household name it is today. In fact, many consumers had a hard time even pronouncing GEICO — not exactly ideal for a challenger brand that needed all the brand awareness it could get.

In 1999, Ted Ward, who runs the advertising department at GEICO, and Ken Spera, who at the time was an art director at The Martin Agency, were talking over dinner on a business trip.

Ted, as he always does, stated the problem succinctly: “People can’t even pronounce our name! How can we expect them to call us for a rate quote?” Suddenly it was like an episode out of Mad Men. The creative guy takes out a pen, grabs a bar napkin, and starts manically sketching something. Here is what Ken drew:

An early sketch of the “Gecko” mascot, drawn on a napkin by Ted Ward. Image courtesy of GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc.

Gary the Gecko? Ted wasn’t crazy about the name “Gary.” But he was intrigued with the idea of a gecko because it sounded so much like GEICO. A visual/verbal mnemonic could go a long way in helping people recognize and remember the brand.

Then, as serendipity sometimes does, it unexpectedly adds momentum to a big idea. An actors’ strike in Hollywood was about to severely limit Ted’s casting options for an upcoming GEICO ad campaign. So, whom do you do cast when you can’t cast humans?

The first Gecko spot ran in the fall of 1999. In the TV ad, the Gecko is holding a press conference, and surprisingly, he is NOT a fan of GEICO.

Since 1999 the Gecko and GEICO have come a long way together. At this writing, GEICO is America’s third largest and fastest growing car insurance company. And the Gecko? He eventually joined the company and was named by Advertising Age as one of advertising’s most recognized and memorable icons.

Steve Bassett is the Group Creative Director at The Martin Agency

Gordon and Carole Segal, married co-founders of Crate & Barrel, examine objects from the museum's collections with curator Peter Liebhold.

Part of our research for the American Enterprise exhibition involves talking to the men and women who have helped define (and redefine) American business in the 20th century. Earlier this year, our team was fortunate enough to sit down with two such entrepreneurs – Gordon and Carole Segal, the married co-founders of Crate & Barrel, one of the largest and most influential furniture and houseware retailers in the world. The Segal interview added much to our understanding of the modern marketplace and will help us develop the exhibition. We were especially pleased to hear the Segals address our themes of opportunity, innovation, and competition from the perspective of their personal experiences.

The Segals were kind enough to let us record the meeting and we want to share some of their stories and insights with you. Click on the hyperlinked text below to hear the Segals tell Crate & Barrel’s story in their own words!

We learned from the Segals that Crate & Barrel began with a very simple idea – one that the couple had, surprisingly, on their honeymoon.

The Segals shared stories and insights with the American Enterprise team during their visit earlier this year.

The Segals also explained that the iconic “Crate & Barrel” look was a product of both design and practical necessity, especially since the couple built their first store on a tight budget in 1962, in an old elevator warehouse.

Although Crate & Barrel is now an international retailer, with more than 170 locations, the Segals always believed quality was a better barometer of success than sheer growth.

The Segals ended our meeting talking about the importance of “everyday beauty.”

On June 16th, the Museum hosted a symposium of business leaders, the first of its kind, that gave curators the opportunity to “pick the brains” of a number of American thought leaders—a group that’s involved in the business world and interested in history. Just like me!

We were fortunate to have symposium participants who represented all of the sectors that will be highlighted in the exhibition: Agriculture, Retail and Service, Finance, IT and Communication, and Manufacturing. The participants discussed three forces that have shaped American business in the last few decades: the global marketplace, competition, and innovation.

David Allison, Associate Director of Curatorial Affairs, gives symposium participants an overview of the American Enterprise exhibition.

Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal led the discussion on the global marketplace. Murray’s opening thoughts challenged participants to consider what has changed in the nature of goods and services in the last 30 years to create the super-charged global commerce that we experience today.

Participants considered causes such as changes in global politics following World War II, improved communication capabilities, and ease of access to financing. When considering the types of objects to represent the “global marketplace,” participants suggested dual time zone watches, a simple glass globe, and cell phones.

The second case, which focused on competition in the business environment, was led by Dean C. Oestreich of Pioneer Hi-Bred. The discussion brought up the interesting idea of exhibiting the concept of competition by considering companies that have not survived the competitive environment. For example, they discussed how cassette tapes failed to stay competitive with the advent of CDs and companies like Hollywood Video have been struggling because they did not anticipate changes in consumer preference (i.e., receiving movies by mail or instantly online).

The final discussion of the day examined innovation in American business. Vint Cerf of Google—considered one of “the fathers of the internet”—facilitated the conversation. Cerf asked everyone to consider whether innovation leads to a throwaway culture in America. There is a great deal of emphasis put on having the newest gadget or latest media device; if you do not have it, you feel as if you are lacking in some way.

Director Brent Glass, Vint Cerf, and Bram Bluestein discuss ideas for American Enterprise.

Participants also discussed the important role of failure on the road to innovation. The American ethos expects people to work hard, but it is forgiving if one fails. The road to creating the “next big thing” is always littered with failed ideas. At the end of the day, participants reached the consensus that companies in today’s global marketplace have to be innovative to compete and survive, a point that nicely ties together the themes of the symposium and of the entire American Enterprise exhibition.

Following the afternoon case discussions, Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer of the United States, addressed the participants. He discussed furthering a culture of innovation by democratizing government data, encouraging market transparency, creating a capacity for innovation, and cultivating innovative ecosystems.

The symposium has given the exhibition team many ideas to consider as it continues to develop the show. The symposium participants have generously offered to continue to work with the Museum as we create this exciting new exhibition. Before American Enterprise opens, we plan on engaging them in another event to facilitate their continued input.

Please share your thoughts about the global marketplace, competition, and innovation with us!

Symposium Participants
John Adams, Jr. (The Martin Agency), Steve Bartlett (The Financial Services Roundtable), Bram Bluestein (McNally Capital), Vint Cerf (Google), Pete Claussen (Gulf & Ohio Railways), Sharon Covert (Covert Farms), Kathryn Fessler (Altria Group), Jodelle French (Intel Corporation), Bruce Gates (Altria Group), Jennifer Goldston (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Michelle Gowdy (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Sarah Knakmus (Altria Group), Abby McCloskey (The Financial Services Roundtable), Phil Mooney (The Coca-Cola Company), Alan Murray (The Wall Street Journal), Dean Oestreich (Pioneer Hi-Bred International), Robert Uhler (MWH Global Inc.) and the American Enterprise exhibition team.

As the Wordle image above illustrates, when asked about economic marketplaces, many of you thought of Wall Street. Stocks and the NYSE, were popular responses, and exchange is certainly at the heart of enterprise. But the term also brought to mind bigger concepts like capitalism, globalization, consumerism, and more human ones like dreams, risks, wealth and poverty, winners and losers. The curators were excited to see all of the terms we tossed around in meetings surfaced in the survey. And we take seriously the charge to portray the positive and not-so positive consequences of the marketplace. It’s clear that we’re on the same page with the majority of readers of this blog. We were particularly delighted to see responses that related to people and places, and to key concepts we’ve discussed at length, like innovation.

What will we do with what we learned? We will use the results of this survey to help build a lively exhibition that explores how the American marketplace writ large has changed over time and how it reveals the dynamic interactions among all sorts of producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, sellers, buyers, advocates and critics whose lives and activities defined American enterprise.

Marketplaces are now the organizing concept for the exhibition. This is a quickly evolving process, but let me give you a snapshot of where we are. The curators liked the idea of marketplaces as a way to describe the history of business in the United States as encompassing many people in a lot of different roles coming together to make, sell, and buy things. In our minds, marketplaces are not just the stock exchange, but also the seaport, the farmer’s market, the department store, the auto dealership, the shopping mall, and the internet, to name a few. The exhibition, which is beginning to take shape, has four marketplaces that capture American enterprise at certain points in time. These marketplaces will both immerse visitors in that time period and also let them explore concepts and objects that interest them.

If you’re wondering how the exhibition is changing, then stay tuned. We’ll be overhauling the Explore section of this website in the next few weeks to reflect the new organization and design of the exhibition. And, of course, we’d like your feedback.