apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Now THAT is a bouncy chair I would buy. Seriously what is FP thinking with the stuff they sale.
Oh yeah, aren't they the ones that recently came out with that asian/natural inspired line? Who is working for FP coming up with these awful looking pieces? And why do parents continue to buy this stuff?

wait, daughter stanley? typo?

While I totally prefer the renovated bouncer, isn't the purpose of the loud, busy patterns and accessories on the original to stimulate the babies sensies and pique her interests? I'm not sure that the subtle version achieves that same objective.

I'm feeling conflicted about this. The remade bouncer certainly looks much nicer to me, and would fit much better into most household designs. But if the original was designed in a way that is "good" for the babies development and stimulation, then the remade one sacrifices much of it's utility. Or I am just buying the company line that the busy patterns stimulate the babies' minds? Is there any research on that issue? I'm genuinely unsure.

Heps, I wonder about that too. The slipcover is nice, and the baby isn't really looking at the pad she's sitting on, but I bet they're not putting the toy bar back on the bouncer, and babies love those toys. The one that particularly bothered me was the rocker they cited up there--they took a cute toy that a toddler would love, and changed it into something ugly, but not brightly colored. (I happen to like that snail rocker.)

Another issue--baby gear is tested over and over for safety. How safe is that spray paint? That magnet looks like it could come off and be swallowed. A baby young enough for the bouncy chair wouldn't be chewing on it, but baby gear doesn't disappear at the suggested age limit, and I've certainly known people whose toddlers used their old bouncy chairs as TV seating.

But, yes, I'm having a baby soon, and I would like simpler, more attractive designs. And everything doesn't have to be pink for girls and blue for boys.

Also--Stanley? I hope that's a joke.

Pencils - We got a fisher price bouncer that was cute enough that I could live with it for awhile:
http://www.amazon.com/Fisher%252dPrice-Soothe-%2527n-Play-Bouncer/dp/B00106CNXK/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=baby-products&qid=1215119640&sr=1-34
It was also much cheaper than the nicely designed ones that I had originally thought I might buy, like the svan bouncer (http://www.modernnursery.com/itemsDetail.cfm/SvanBouncer/0/item_num/SC-BN/pcid/76/cid/0/keyword/svan%20bouncer?gclid=COrz4YLUpJQCFQZinAodjBA5gg)
My son has really appreciated the hanging toys. At about six-months old, he's already pretty much outgrown the bouncer, so it's not something that you have to deal with for that long.

Now why can't Fisher Price get a clue that parents want simple, not-so-loud designs?

It's not all about YOU.

Infants are attracted to bright colors and patterns. They don't even see pastels as newbies.

I had that Ocean Wonders bouncer, and my son loved it. Of course it didn't fit our adult décor, but so what? Having a baby didn't fit our adult anything. Adjustment was required.

News flash: baby bouncers are not a permanent part of your home and do not need to match your decor. They're made with a baby in mind, not you and your decorating scheme. Get real!!

Now, come on folks... kids may like bright colors but that orginal ruffle is egregious.... don't be telling me kids love them some ruffles?

I agree the baby stuff doesn't have to match one's carefully considered home decor, but I also don't agree that bright and developmentally stimulating has to mean butt ugly. And the original is butt ugly. So I have no problem with slipcovering. But I also agree that I'd never spray paint a baby item. Call me paranoid, but once they can move they put their mouth on everything, and that seems dicey to me.

This is so boring and plain! (Maybe a patterned fabric that coordinated with their home decor would have looked better.)

Baby items are supposed to be fun and whimsical, not boring and sterile. (There is middle ground out there between the garish Fisher Price design and this blah redo. We like the Svan and Oeuf bouncers. Colorful, but not garish.)

First of all, love love love the name Stanley for a girl.
Second, the bouncy is a total upgrade.
Babies young enough to use the bouncy don't even see color - they do best with strong black and white contrast but really all they need to see is the adoring face(s) of their parent(s). Glad you covered that tacky shit!

And another thing, we as parents DO NOT put our babies in bouncy seats for "stimulation" time. We put them in it to (hopefully) get them to stop crying for a minute so we can shower or think or eat. Seriously. So more power to you, Stanley's family!

Seems like an awful lot of work to me...especially for something that's used for just a few short months.

I vote with fun for the the baby coming before Mommy and Daddy's aesthetic tastes.

And please give that little pumpkin a pretty girly middle name that she can opt for in case she doesn't want to be the only girl in 2nd grade with the same name as her middle-aged male principal! It may seem cool and hip to you now- but she deserves a choice once the recent naming fad passes.

harking back to my old high school lingo -- simmer down, people! i think it looks great. i wholeheartedly agree with paperdollsforboys. yes babies love color, stimulation, etc etc, but a lot of times bouncy seats are used to soothe, no? and how is loud, clashing, stimulating colors soothing to an already over-stimulated baby?
and let's give the family the benefit of the doubt that this is not the only toy in the house.

it looks fab. and much more comfortable, too.

I think the bouncy seat is cute with the redo, but have to agree with the questioning Stanley for a girl name. Really? Really? I guess that is one trend I will NEVER get.

For all you Stanley-for-a-girl haters, don't forget that Stanley Ann is the name our [knock wood] future president's mother.

I love the slipcover. Babies don't need stimulation every second and, in any case, are quite stimulated by ordinary household items. And isn't human interaction better stimulation than a tacky blue bar of plastic dangling over their faces?

This debate has put me in mind of this old Ohdeedoh post about how well young babies are actually able to see. Maybe someone should run both versions of the chair through the Tiny Eyes application and see how each would appear to a baby. ;)

Wow, I'm always surprised which posts will raise the cockles of our readers.

In my view, if the baby is sitting in the chair, they don't have a view of it so loud (garish) colors and patterns, "stimulating" or not, won't benefit them.

As for the discussion of the suitability of the name "Stanley" for a girl - I really don't think it's any of our business what Stanley's parents name her.

Heading over to check out Tiny Eyes again (good thought, TammyE).

Carrie

Re: The "It's not stimulating enough" line of thought...

Because it's not like there aren't a million other things that stimulate babies all day long. Like pretty much everything?

I think it's a wonderful redo and please, it's no one's business what they choose to call their child. I knew plenty of Jenny's in school who hated having to be called Jenny M, or Jenny S because there were so many of them. In a few years there'll be lots of Emma's feeling the same way. Stanley certainly won't have that problem.

Senator Obama's mom was named Stanley by her dad, who had hoped for a boy. Not a cool reason to give your kid that name, imho.

I like the idea of re-doing garishly coloured baby items, but in this case, it seems like a lot of work for an item that is only used for a few months. Still, if it floats your boat, go for it.

I think this redesigned bouncy seat looks so much better, and the baby won't be looking at the seat, so I don't see any problem with changing it. Seriously, babies don't need constant stimulation, geez! Give them a break sometimes!

Not sure about Stanley as a girl's name, but I'm sure they have a good reason for naming her that.

i love it! its very crafty and i love that it is a pass-along item. i am sure the next family that you pass this item along to will be very grateful!

I love this idea! I worked in the juvenile industry for many years and I can tell you, no, the cover designs are NOT really done for the development of the baby, it's more for the gift-giver/parent "cute" factor. Yes, the vast majority of people in the mass-market think that this is cute. Really. I've met these people, designed products for them, they really exist!

When it comes to babies development and this product, the moving fish is really what is most stimulating to them (along with color). It also comes with sounds and vibration, which some kids find soothing too (not all at once though, that's OVER-stimulation!). So the ocver really doesn't matter much, I just wish I had discovered this post before my daughter outgrew the bouncy!

Most infant/toddler products are actually overstimulating, and the more affordable ones seem to be the most overstimulating in their design. I see several infants and toddlers in their homes each day for developmental assessments and individual therapy, and there's quite a correlation between visually disorganized environments and difficulties with attending and self-soothing. No, not 100%, because other parts of a child's behavior are due to temperament, human interaction, and underlying neurology. But the kids who are in homes full of multicolored infant equipment and elaborate toys are often more disorganized than the kids who are surrounded by simpler items.

And really, people needing to judge what this family named their child? Grow up.