Consumer Corner
How Valentine’s Day was transformed by the Industrial Revolution and ‘manufactured intimacy’
Christopher Ferguson, Auburn University
When we think of Valentine’s Day, chubby Cupids, hearts and roses generally come to mind, not industrial processes like mass production and the division of labor. Yet the latter were essential to the holiday’s history.
As a historian researching material culture and emotions, I’m aware of the important role the exchange of manufactured greeting cards played in the 19th-century version of Valentine’s Day.
At the beginning of that century, Britons produced most of their valentines by hand. By the 1850s, however, manufactured cards had replaced those previously made by individuals at home. By the 1860s, more than 1 million cards were in circulation in London alone.
The British journalist and playwright Andrew Halliday was fascinated by these cards, especially one popular card that featured a lady and gentleman walking arm-in-arm up a pathway toward a church.
Halliday recalled watching in fascination as “the windows of small booksellers and stationers” filled with “highly-coloured” valentines, and contemplating “how and where” they “originated.” “Who draws the pictures?” he wondered. “Who writes the poetry?”
In 1864 he decided to find out.
Manufactured intimacy
Today Halliday is most often remembered for his writing on London beggars in a groundbreaking 1864 social survey, “London Labour and the London Poor.” However, throughout the 1860s he was a regular contributor to Charles Dickens’ popular journal “All the Year Round,” in which he entertained readers with essays addressing various facets of ordinary British daily existence, including family relations, travel, public services and popular entertainments.
In one essay for that journal – “Cupid’s Manufactory,” which was later reprinted in 1866 in the collection “Everyday Papers” – Halliday led his readers on a guided tour of one of London’s foremost card manufacturers.
Inside the premises of “Cupid and Co.,” they followed a “valentine step by step” from a “plain sheet of paper” to “that neat white box in which it is packed, with others of its kind, to be sent out to the trade.”
Touring ‘Cupid’s Manufactory’
“Cupid and Co.” was most likely the firm of Joseph Mansell, a lace-paper and stationary company that manufactured large numbers of valentines between the 1840s and 1860s – and also just happened to occupy the same address as “Mr. Cupid’s” in London’s Red Lion Square.
The processes Halliday described, however, were common to many British card manufacturers in the 1860s, and exemplified many industrial practices first introduced during the late 18th century, including the subdivision of tasks and the employment of women and child laborers.
Halliday moved through the rooms of “Cupid’s Manufactory,” describing the variety of processes by which various styles of cards were made for a range of different people and price points.
He noted how the card with the lady and gentleman on the path to the church began as a simple stamped card, in black and white – identical to one preserved today in the collections of the London Museum – priced at one penny.
A portion of these cards, however, then went on to a room where a group of young women were arranged along a bench, each with a different color of “liquid water-colour at her elbow.” Using stencils, one painted the “pale brown” pathway, then handed it to the woman next to her, who painted the “gentleman’s blue coat,” who then handed it to the next, who painted the “salmon-coloured church,” and so forth. It was much like a similar group of female workers depicted making valentines in the “Illustrated London News” in the 1870s.
These colored cards, Halliday noted, would be sold for “sixpence to half-a-crown.” A portion of these, however, were then sent on to another room, where another group of young women glued on feathers, lace-paper, bits of silk or velvet, or even gold leaf, creating even more ornate cards sometimes sold for 5 shillings and above.
All told, Halliday witnessed “about sixty hands” – mostly young women, but also “men and boys,” who worked 10 hours a day in every season of the year, making cards for Valentine’s Day.
Yet, it was on the top floor of the business that Halliday encountered the people who arguably fascinated him the most: the six artists who designed all the cards, and the poets who provided their text – most of whom actually worked offsite.
Here were the men responsible for manufacturing the actual sentiments the cards conveyed – and in the mid-19th century these encompassed a far wider range of emotions than the cards produced by Hallmark and others in the 21st century.
A spectrum of ‘manufactured emotions’
Many Victorians mailed cards not only to those with whom they were in love, but also to those they disliked or wished to mock or abuse. A whole subgenre of cards existed to belittle the members of certain trades, like tailors or draper’s assistants, or people who dressed out of fashion.
Cards were specifically designed for discouraging suitors and for poking fun of the old or the unattractive. While some of these cards likely were exchanged as jokes between friends, the consensus among scholars is that many were absolutely intended to be sent as cruel insults.
Furthermore, unlike in the present day, in the 19th century those who received a Valentine were expected to send one in return, which meant there were also cards to discourage future attentions, recommend patience, express thanks, proclaim mutual admiration, or affirm love’s effusions.
Halliday noted the poet employed by “Cupid’s” had recently finished the text for a mean-spirited comic valentine featuring a gentleman admiring himself in a mirror:
Looking at thyself within the glass,
You appear lost in admiration;
You deceive yourself, and think, alas!
You are a wonder of creation.
This same author, however, had earlier completed the opposite kind of text for the card Halliday had previously highlighted, featuring the “lady and gentleman churchward-bound”:
“The path before me gladly would I trace,
With one who’s dearest to my constant heart,
To yonder church, the holy sacred place,
Where I my vows of Love would fain impart;
And in sweet wedlock’s bonds unite with thee,
Oh, then, how blest my life would ever be!”
These were very different texts by the very same man. And Halliday assured his readers “Cupid’s laureate” had authored many others in every imaginable style and sentiment, all year long, for “twopence a line.”
Halliday showed how a stranger was manufacturing expressions of emotions for the use of other strangers who paid money for them. In fact, he assured his readers that in the lead up to Valentine’s Day “Cupid’s” was “turning out two hundred and fifty pounds’ worth of valentines a week,” and that his business was “yearly on the increase.”
Halliday found this dynamic – the process of mass producing cards for profit to help people express their authentic emotions – both fascinating and bizarre. It was a practice he thought seemed like it ought to be “beneath the dignity of the age.”
And yet it thrived among the earnest Victorians, and it thrives still. Indeed, it remains a core feature of the modern holiday of Valentine’s Day.
This year, like in so many others, I will stand at a display of greeting cards, with many other strangers, as we all try to find that one card designed by someone else, mass-produced for profit, that will convey our sincere personal feelings for our friends and loved ones.
Christopher Ferguson, Associate Professor of History, Auburn University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’
Target’s recent decision to end its diversity programs has sparked backlash among Black consumers and entrepreneurs. While some call for a boycott, others caution that it could harm Black businesses more than the retailer.
Timeka N. Tounsel, University of Washington
Some Black consumers may be breaking up with Target this February.
It all started late last month, when the retailer announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move drew widespread rebuke from social justice organizers, including New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant. Although Target said one set of its racial-equity initiatives had already been scheduled to conclude, the timing was notable: The move came just days after the White House called for a federal DEI ban, and as several other companies took similar actions.
Beyond renaming its “supplier diversity” team – now called “supplier engagement” – and ending “diversity-focused surveys,” Target hasn’t said what the change will mean for the many Black entrepreneurs who sell everything from coffee to sunscreen on its shelves. The webpage for the retailer’s Black Beyond Measure initiative, which highlights dozens of Black-founded brands and connects business owners to a program designed to “democratize access to retail education,” remains active.
But Target’s critics, including Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, view the move as a surrender to the new presidential administration’s attack on equity programs. In a news conference outside Target’s Minnesota headquarters on Jan. 30, 2025, Armstrong called for a nationwide boycott of the store to begin on the first day of Black History Month.
While many social media users posted in support of the boycott, some Black founders whose brands are stocked by Target – and there are dozens of them – have been more conflicted. Tabitha Brown, whose products can be found in various aisles, from books to cooking appliances, asked customers to reconsider boycotting Target. Withholding their dollars, Brown insisted, will hurt Black businesses far more than the corporations that sell their products.
This request for restraint garnered a mixed response on social media. Some Black consumers accused Black business owners of selling out the very racial community that contributed to their success.
So, why would a Black business owner ask consumers to patronize a retailer that signaled it doesn’t care about Black customers? And how did something as mundane as where people buy toilet paper and shampoo become a litmus test for racial consciousness in the first place?
Black consumers and the fight for dignity
The marketplace has long been a battleground where Black Americans have sought to assert their citizenship. Most of the nation’s biggest household brands didn’t begin to take African American consumers seriously until after World War II. Before that shift, advertisements and product packaging were more likely to feature degrading Black caricatures to appeal to white shoppers, than to address Black consumers directly.
This segregated commercial landscape reinforced the belief among some community members that Black people would not be taken seriously as citizens until they were taken seriously as consumers. They would need to vote with their dollars, patronizing only those brands and retailers that respected them.
In my research on marketing campaigns aimed at Black women, I’ve examined how the struggle for consumer citizenship complicated the dynamic between Black entrepreneurs and consumers. On the one hand, businesses have long leveraged Black ownership as a unique selling proposition in and of itself, urging shoppers to view Black brand loyalty as a path to collective racial progress.
Unlike their larger competitors, Black entrepreneurs relied on their racial community to stay afloat. Patronizing African American businesses could therefore be framed as a racial duty. Conversely, as African American advertising pioneers made clear, recognition from big brands was a political victory of sorts because it signaled that Black dollars were just as valuable as anyone else’s. https://www.youtube.com/embed/SAFubUnsl3Y?wmode=transparent&start=0 A short documentary from The Advertising Club of New York featuring iconic ads from African American marketer Tom Burrell.
Competing for Black dollars
Corporate attention to Black consumers ebbs and flows in a cycle that is especially noticeable in the beauty and personal care industry. In seasons of limited competition for African American customers, entrepreneurs typically thrive, even while they struggle to meet the capital demands of a growing brand. Their success, however, beckons larger corporations, which then seek to capitalize on consumer niches they previously ignored.
Two common approaches that mass market brands pursue to compete for Black dollars include acquiring smaller, established Black brands and developing their own niche products. Large corporations deployed both strategies during a period of intense expansion into the beauty market of the 1980s.
Black owners tried to stave off their competition by creating a special emblem that alerted shoppers to their authenticity. Then, as now, social justice organizations, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH, also initiated boycotts and urged Black consumers not to choose “lipstick over liberation.”
Nevertheless, many Black entrepreneurs sold their brands, and by 1986 nearly half of the Black hair care market was no longer Black-owned.
A linked fate
Parsing winners and losers within the world of Black enterprise is as difficult now as it was in earlier periods. African American business owners often possess a cultural consciousness that distinguishes their brands, even when they can’t match the resources of larger competitors. And as they figure out how to survive an uneven playing field, Black entrepreneurs sometimes face accusations of betraying their racial community.
In a market governed by the law of supply and demand, Black consumers benefit from increased competition. Yet, racial loyalty sometimes asks that they eschew these benefits for the sake of keeping Black dollars in Black hands.
Four years ago, when Target launched its Black Beyond Measure funding initiative, it seemed that the retailer had struck a rare balance in supporting Black brands and their customers. In addition to curating a collection of products to lure shoppers, Target used the campaign as an opportunity to position entrepreneurs to flourish well beyond Black History Month.
Now, as Black consumers and business owners weigh varying responses to the retailer’s decision to reverse their commitment to DEI values, one question endures: Do Black dollars matter?
Timeka N. Tounsel, Associate Professor of Black Studies in Communication, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Consumer Corner
Trump’s opening tariff salvo will hurt US consumers − following through on Canada, Mexico threats will increase the price pain
Jason Reed, University of Notre Dame
If U.S. voters reelected Donald Trump hoping for relief from higher prices, his recent threats to impose tariffs on America’s three largest trade partners might make them think again.
On Saturday, Feb. 1, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China, which he said would take effect on Tuesday, Feb. 4. While markets braced for the news to some degree, they still saw a steep premarket sell-off on Monday, Feb. 3, followed by morning volatility.
While Canada and Mexico negotiated monthlong reprieves on Monday, the new tariffs on China went into effect as expected Tuesday, Feb. 4. And while the ultimate shape of Trump’s tariff policy remains to be seen, the president warned that American consumers could feel “some pain” as a result.
Given my training as an economist and finance professor, I think Trump could be right on that score. In fact, if the tariffs go into effect, they could spell disaster for the Federal Reserve’s inflation reduction efforts.
From grocery stores to homes
U.S. consumers might be surprised to find out that almost every economic sector could be affected by this opening salvo of tariffs, should they go ahead in March. Imports from Mexico and Canada reached close to US$1 trillion in 2024, almost double the amount the U.S. imports from China.
The U.S. is particularly reliant on Mexico for fresh fruits and vegetables, and on Canada for lumber. So if the tariffs go into effect, Americans who have been waiting for home prices to ease may have to continue waiting, as tariffs on lumber and other building materials could worsen the affordable-housing crunch. And let’s not even talk about avocado prices.
Meanwhile, the 10% tariffs on Chinese goods will likely boost the price of electronics, and China has already imposed retaliatory measures. Trump has also proposed 25% tariffs on Taiwan and its semiconductor industry, in an attempt to push Taiwanese companies to invest more in U.S. manufacturing. If that tariff were to go into effect, prices for U.S. consumers would be even higher.
A tax by any other name …
Tariffs are an import tax. They’re passed through the supply chain in the form of higher prices and are eventually paid by consumers. Traditionally, governments have used tariffs as a fiscal tool to encourage businesses and consumers to move away from foreign-made products and support domestic businesses instead.
In theory, new tariffs could encourage foreign businesses to invest in the U.S. and make more stuff on American soil. Unfortunately, domestic manufacturing has seen a systemic decline since the 1980s, resulting in lower prices for consumers but severely limiting U.S.-produced products. In the short term, at least, import taxes on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese products would ultimately be paid by U.S. consumers.
Although this round of tariff threats may seem arbitrary to some, the Trump administration says it considers tariffs deeply intertwined with national security concerns. Stephen Miran, Trump’s pick to chair the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, has laid out a path for Trump’s tariff plan, which he says is aimed at putting American industry on fairer ground against the rest of the world.
In the long term, it’s unclear whether Trump’s threatened trade war will bring domestic manufacturing back to the U.S. and start a new industrial renaissance. In the meantime, American consumers will likely be stuck holding the bag.
Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Consumer Corner
EXKA SELECTS SOLLUM’S DYNAMIC LED GROW LIGHT SOLUTION FOR ENHANCED CANNABIS PRODUCTION
SOLLUM’S LIGHTING SOLUTION CHOSEN TO BOOST CANNABIS PRODUCTION
MONTRÉAL /CNW/ – Sollum Technologies is pleased to announce that EXKA, a leading cannabis producer in Québec, Canada, has chosen Sollum’s cutting-edge dynamic LED grow light solution as part of the expansion of their state-of-the art greenhouse facilities in Mirabel. This partnership marks a significant milestone in EXKA’s production capabilities, with the company increasing its greenhouse footprint by 50%.
This decision reflects EXKA’s commitment to leveraging advanced and sustainable lighting strategies to boost production efficiency and crop quality.
“We are excited to partner with Sollum Technologies and benefit from their easy-to-use and innovative lighting solution,” said Dr. Maxime Paris, President of EXKA. “We are committed to improving the agronomic efficiency of cannabis production. Our research demonstrates that adjusting the light spectrum can positively influence yield and the production of secondary metabolites such as cannabinoids and terpenes. We believe that the precision and the customization of controls offered by Sollum’s dynamic LED lighting will play a crucial role in enhancing the growth and potency of our cannabis plants.”
Sollum’s adaptable solution is designed to mimic natural sunlight, providing plants with the exact light spectrum needed to optimize each growth stage. The technology not only improves plant health and yield but also cuts energy consumption and operational costs, aligning with EXKA’s goals of scientific advancement and sustainability.
“We are proud to be selected by EXKA and to support their efforts in pushing the boundaries of cannabis cultivation,” said Kassim Tremblay, Vice President, Strategic Accounts at Sollum Technologies. “Our dynamic LED grow light solution is designed to offer unparalleled flexibility and efficiency, and we are confident that EXKA will see remarkable improvements in their production.”
The collaboration between EXKA and Sollum Technologies underscores the importance of innovative solutions in the rapidly evolving cannabis industry. Both companies are dedicated to pioneering advancements that enhance productivity and sustainability.
For more information about Sollum Technologies and their dynamic LED grow light solution, please visit sollum.tech.
About Sollum Technologies
Sollum Technologies designed the only 100% dynamic LED lighting solution that modulates the full spectrum of the Sun’s natural light to illuminate closed environments such as greenhouses, research centers and laboratories. Sollum’s award-winning, turnkey solution consists of internet of things, AI-powered light fixtures that are controlled by Sollum’s proprietary SUN as a Service® cloud platform. Sollum’s distinctive proposition is a fully scalable cleantech solution that evolves with business needs and multi-zone light management, with each zone benefiting from automatic dimming of an unlimited number of light recipes; this is why it provides unparalleled value in terms of energy savings and, additionally for greenhouse growers, increased productivity, and superior produce quality.
Founded in 2015, the company is headquartered in Montréal (Québec, Canada), where its design, development, and manufacturing activities are concentrated, and has a representative office in Leamington (Ontario, Canada). For more information, visit sollum.tech.
©2025 Sollum Technologies. All rights reserved. SUN as a Service, SUNaaS, LED by nature, SF-E2, SF-ONE, SF-PRO, SF-MAX, S.E.A.R.C.H. and the Sollum logo are registered or trademarks of Sollum Technologies
SOURCE Sollum Technologies
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
Urbanism1 year agoSignal Hill, California: A Historic Enclave Surrounded by Long Beach
-
News2 years agoDiana Gregory Talks to us about Diana Gregory’s Outreach Services
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoThe Absolute Most Comfortable Pickleball Shoe I’ve Ever Worn!
-
STM Blog2 years agoWorld Naked Gardening Day: Celebrating Body Acceptance and Nature
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years agoACE PICKLEBALL CLUB TO DEBUT THEIR HIGHLY ANTICIPATED INDOOR PICKLEBALL FRANCHISES IN THE US, IN EARLY 2023
-
Travel2 years agoUnique Experiences at the CitizenM
-
Automotive2 years ago2023 Nissan Sentra pricing starts at $19,950
-
Senior Pickleball Report2 years ago“THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARDS OF PICKLEBALL” – VOTING OPEN