Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood
My Ballard header image 2
 

Would McPhee’s really have to close?

Posted by Geeky Swedes on March 27th, 2008

Since the news broke earlier this week that Ballard institution Archie McPhee’s may close its doors if a new toxic toy bill is signed, there have been a lot of questions about the bill and its impact. Would McPhee’s really have to close? What’s wrong with reducing toxicity in toys? And is the Sigmund Freud bobblehead really a toy? We asked Archie McPhee’s David Wahl some follow up questions, which follow below…

My Ballard: Reducing lead in children’s toys sounds like a noble endeavor, so what’s wrong with the bill?

David Wahl : Firstly, I just want to say that Archie McPhee complies with already stringent federal product safety guidelines. To make it clear, there are already standards in place. We want to make sure that people understand that this is not about us carrying dangerous toys, it’s about changing the standards in only Washington state that we already have on a federal level. This bill would mean re-testing toys that have already been tested.

The intention behind this bill is great, but I think it would have unintended consequences.

It’s a poorly written bill that doesn’t define child or toy in any concrete way. They actually define “toy” by the intention of the manufacturer, as an object intended to be used by children at play. While none of the items we produce ourselves, under the Accoutrements label, are intended for children, one would be hard pressed to say that a Devil Duckie or a Sigmund Freud Action Figure is not by some definition a toy. Reading the minds of manufacturers about what their intentions are is not a good basis for serious legislation.

Also, it’s written by people that have little or no knowledge of the toy industry or how products are tested. They have actually said that if a product doesn’t contain anything harmful, it doesn’t need to be tested. This is not only untrue, but illogical. How could you determine what a product contains without a test?

The bill also exempts BB guns from having to meet the standards in the bill. You have to question a bill that treats a Yodelling Pickle as more potentially dangerous to a child than a BB gun.

We work very hard to make sure our products are safe and that they fall within federal product safety standards. No one wants to produce toys that are dangerous or that harm anybody.

My Ballard: You’re quoted as saying Archie McPhee’s store would close if the bill, as written, becomes law. Is that really the only alternative?

Wahl: We don’t want to close.

However, if we did stay open it would be in a severely limited form. Even if we try to comply, it will be difficult to know what is required of us. We order products from all over the country and it will be easier for most small and medium-sized manufacturers to simply not sell to customers in Washington rather than change their guidelines for just one state. Washington accounts for less than 2% of the national market for toys. For most companies it will not be worth the expense of the repeated testing that they will have to go through.

So, you will have to drive out of state to buy toys, because no one is going to want to ship them here either.

My Ballard: How much would the law cost the company? How did you estimate that number?

Wahl: The number in the article is slightly out of context. We have over 10,000 items in our store and since the only way to be sure if they meet standards would be to test them all and manufacturers will be unwilling to re-test them, we would have to pay. Each test costs $500. That is $5,000,000. We are obviously not going to pay for the tests, but it puts a number on how much extra expense it would be for everyone involved. (The $500 is from a Wall Street Journal article and is their estimate.)

My Ballard: Has the governor’s office or the state legislature contacted you?

Wahl: We have been contacted by the author of the bill, Rep. Dickerson (who is the state rep. for Ballard). We were unable to make her understand that because her bill is so poorly written and thought out, it would have a huge impact on us, consumers and other toy sellers in Washington state without any meaningful improvement in safety.

It won’t make toys safer, it will just make the many already safe toys harder for people in Washington to buy. And, sadly, the possible end of Archie McPhee.

Tags: Ballard   Facebook

  • Ben
    Like David said, I almost never see children buying stuff at Archie McPhee's. McPhee's should be exempt because this bill is designed to protect children, not adults.
  • Greg
    Dickerson has lost my vote.

    When NW Market is nothing but a row of cell phone shops and fast food places we'll know who to blame. I hate this kind of irrational and emotional law making that imposes sweeping changes where they aren't needed.

    Of course we need strict restrictions on toys for 3 and below - especially on items that intended to be put in their mouths. But, trace amounts of lead in an action figure just isn't a big deal. Where is the science?
  • The Raven
    See [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/worldbusiness/11lead.html]
    We corvids wish you hominids would stop poisoning yourselves. It would be a shame if Archie McPhee closed, though.
  • I note with chagrin that the Governor says that she is concerned about lead soldering for electronic products (the bill exempts computer games and software, wireless phones and calculators) although it seems unlikely that soldering on internal componentry would present as immediate or substantial of a risk as would be presented by lead or other toxics in materials that are directly handled by children. Incidentally, the bill has numerous exemptions written in -- mostly for sporting goods such as darts, pocketknives, roller skates, sleds, skis, and tricycles -- though obviously many of these items are used by children. I think the Governor's expressed concern about the bill is less about draftmanship (the Seattle PI uncritically characterizes the bill as drafted in an "imprecise way", which to me itself seems imprecise) and more about cold feet due to last minute lobbying by toy manufacturers who raise the bogeyman of no toys made for Washington children. Of course the bigger issue is money (isn't it always). An article from the Wall Street Journal linked by the Seattlest piece notes that Washington sales of toys account for 2% of the national total, which last year was 23.5 billion. Assuming the accuracy of those figures that means that Washington toy sales are in the neighborhood of $470,000,000. A dent in toy sales with a struggling economy could mean a lot of lost loot for Washington toy manufacturers, retailers, shippers, etc. etc. etc. Oh yeah, tax revenues, political contributions ... Governor Gregoire is up for reelection in the Fall. On the other hand ... come on! Does anyone really think that the toy companies wouldn't rather find a way to manufacture/source toys and materials to make $470,000,000/year rather than lose that. It's preposterous. Incidentally Washington isn't the only state taking action on this issue.

    I also find it amazing AM has become such a Seattle attraction and the object of tremendous loyalty. The Seattlest piece says that the news is "disheartening" and "struck ... fear or sadness" in them. They call AM a "beloved ... misfit haven" and "a quintessential Seattle store, whose value to the community is immeasurable." Wow. The Seattle PI piece and photo caption call the store a "Ballard landmark" and "oddball Northwest landmark." Archie McPhee is listed as #77/298 attractions in Seattle on TripAdvisor making it more "popular", by at least one measure, than Capitol Hill, the original Starbucks location, the Fremont troll, and even Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe on the waterfront, whose tourist visibility and kitsch value seem markedly greater than AM IMO). Archie McPhee has been mentioned in several articles about Ballard in the Seattle Times, the Boston Globe and even Frommer's. Do those guys down there at AM have a PR department or what?

    As someone who has lived in Seattle for less than 10 years I don't purport to fully understand the reaction to the potential loss of a store (I say potential because towards the end of the PI piece AM suggests that they won't go out of business at all as does your My Ballard interview) that is fun, but that mostly sells knick knacks. However, what it really seems to come down to is the rapid change that is happening with the accompanying loss of Old Ballard or Old Seattle: Manning/Denny's, Sunset Bowl, the Blob, the Twin Teepees ...

    I do understand AM's argument that their sales don't necessarily implicate some of the concerns motivating HR 2647. Anecdotally they seem to sell substantially to young adults but creating an exemption for toys sold to adults will blast a truck-sized loophole in the law. After almost all toys for children are bought by adults. I guess we'll have to wait and see how this all pans out.
blog comments powered by Disqus