Fetal conditioning was just the start for many 1980s superbabies. The importance of auditory stimulation in utero was further emphasized in the parenting book How to Have a Smarter Baby. Written by a professor of nursing and a lay writer, the book counseled expectant parents to play recordings of their own voices or soothing music, which, the book’s jacket copy misleadingly claimed, would be part of “an easy 15-minute-a-day program that can raise your baby’s IQ as much as 27 to 30 points … and increase his or her attention span by as much 10 to 45 minutes.” Although the book’s authors would later try to backpedal on that extraordinary — and, ultimately, specious — claim, the word was out. For truly time-squeezed superwomen unable to enroll in fetal classes, technology had a solution. Newspaper and television stories reported seeing pregnant women on the way to work with a Sony Walkman stretched across the belly, piping in recordings of Laurence Olivier reading sonnets. Gadgets such as the Pregaphone, which resembled an oversize stethoscope, claimed to be able to do that job better than a home-jiggered Walkman. Making its debut at the 1986 consumer trade show Babyfair — its third annual show of the latest in infant and toddler products — the Pregaphone was launched while Susan K. Golant, coauthor of How to Have a Smarter Baby, spoke on a Babyfair panel, emphasizing that the point of her book was not “creating superbabies … the point is having well-loved babies.”
PLAYLAB
Companies that make educational or “learning” toys for very young children today still cleave to some of the corporate traditions of their predecessors. For example, in the 1940s Playskool and Fisher-Price put experts on the payroll and later built product-testing facilities where local children were invited to put prototype toys through their paces. The companies gave these facilities scientific-sounding names such as the Playskool Institute and Fisher-Price’s PlayLab, and asked child development experts to assist in product research. It was a maneuver of marketing genius. These testing facilities acquired the patina of respected institutions, which lent the toys educational legitimacy and allowed the toy companies to take advantage of children’s curiosity and parents’ status seeking to conduct usability studies and market research for free. Today, instead of inviting experts with advanced degrees to visit the lab, companies hire them to run the labs full-time.
Kathleen Alfano, who holds a Ph.D. in elementary education, has headed Fisher-Price’s PlayLab for more than twenty years. Her assistants are all certified in early childhood education. LeapFrog’s lab staff is even more academically distinguished. It is headed by Jim Gray, who earned a Ph.D. in early childhood development from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he was a protégé of Howard Gardner, the celebrated author of Multiple Intelligences. Gray manages two full-time assistants, one of whom holds a doctorate in developmental psychology; the other earned a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s renowned Media Lab, where cutting-edge robotics and learning technologies are researched. Both PlayLab and the LeapFrog Lab are state-of-the-art facilities, equipped with one-way-mirrored observation rooms and professional video resources. PlayLab is set up as a preschool, with areas for imaginative play, outdoor activities, and snack. In western New York State, gaining admission to PlayLab has an elite aura comparable to that of enrolling in a private Manhattan preschool. Many parents reportedly sign up their babies at birth, and many of those parents are PlayLab graduates themselves; according to Alfano, PlayLab is now seeing its third generation of participants. The waiting time to become a child tester at PlayLab is often more than two years. To prepare families for their visit to the lab, Fisher-Price issues a professionally produced videotape detailing the experience in store for them. The children who participate in product research at PlayLab are not paid. Company spokespeople say that the excitement of being part of the development process is reward enough for the children and their families. Some PlayLab graduates are selected as unpaid models for photo shoots for Fisher-Price’s toy packaging. “That’s our way of giving back to our community,” according to a public relations assistant.
The Leapfrog Lab generates a similarly exclusive atmosphere. With a database of thousands of families in the Bay Area who have volunteered their children, Gray estimates that roughly three thousand children pass through the LeapFrog Lab every year. As payment, they may receive a gift certificate or a toy, but, as at PlayLab, the chief reward is getting to come at all. Even the most enthusiastic participants are not invited to return, however. Once they grow savvy about answering marketers’ and product designers’ questions they are no longer considered “fresh blood”: children whose perspective is untainted by the market research process. Gray surmises that LeapFrog Lab volunteers — or their parents — may feel that the testing conveys on them some of the distinction of junior inventors or scientists.
LeapFrog Baby also cultivates an air of scientific inquiry, insisting that the toys developed by the Infant and Toddler Division be tied to academic research on very young children, which has boomed in the past decade. In the baby division, learning has more or less been codified by a special document, about which people speak with hushed pride. This document is known as the S&S, short for Scope and Sequence.
Scope and Sequence, a term borrowed from academia, refers to a curriculum plan in which educational objectives and skills are mapped out according to the stages at which they will be taught. At LeapFrog, however, the S&S is jokingly referred to as “the secret weapon”: It is the basis on which the division’s toys are designed. As such, the S&S is guarded with extreme care. Only producers who are given clearance to work on it can access the document on the company’s computer network. Only one hard copy is permitted to circulate internally at any given time; additional printouts are strictly prohibited. When analysts or journalists meet with the Infant and Toddler Division to learn about how LeapFrog applies its distinctive brand of “learning” to toy design for this age group, the producers clutch the well-worn S&S and refer to it by opening the pages gingerly, cupping their hands to keep outsiders from stealing a glance. Producers say that the S&S is kept secret because it contains the key to LeapFrog’s unique competitive advantage in the zero-to-three market. They explain that the S&S is the product of years of data compiled from books, academic journals, and parenting magazines on infant and toddler development, as well as discussions with experts, and thus is grounded in serious research. While competitors may incorporate a general learning lesson into their toys in order to market them effectively to mothers and retail buyers, LeapFrog is able, thanks to the S&S, to design toys that pinpoint specific areas of learning targeted to precise ages.
After assuring themselves that I am not spying for a competitor, the producers grant me a brief chance to examine the S&S. The document, which is constantly being updated is between fifty and one hundred pages in length. Essentially, it is an enormous chart with correspondingly enormous ambition: to catalog every developmental skill from birth to two years. One axis lists a specific age or range (such as six months or six to twelve months); the other axis itemizes the developmental skills associated with that age or range. For example, under the subheading “Memory,” one finds the entry “cognitive mapping” — basically, the ability to remember where things are located — listed as a skill correlating with the age of six months. If these terms sound as though they were lifted from a textbook on early developmental psychology, it is because most of them were. Although most LeapFrog producers are not academics, there is nothing inappropriate about adopting academic