STRAW-HAT DAY

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 November 1934, Page 4

STRAW-HAT DAY

SYDNEY’S LATEST PROPAGANDA. SYDNEY, November 2. For u lesson in the art of commercial propaganda look to the Ilatiiicn’s Association, of Now South Wales! Worried by a falling-off in trade, the hat-makers some time ago decided ,that they must be up and doing. First of all they criticised the men who wore shabby bats, and endeavoured to show what an. important part the hat played in a man’s attire. Then they attacked the man who did not wear a hat. they are pointing to the unsuitability of the felt hat for all the year round, and this week they organised a “straw hat day.” The men of Sydney have always been partial to felt hats, and the task of inducing them to change over to straws and panamas is indeed difficult. Last year there was a fair sale for panamas, and it is hoped that this year many thousands more will be converted. Urged on by the hatmen the shops -made a special display of the latest in light headgear, but in the streets the felts were still favourites. The association is anxious that th? man of to-day should become “hat' conscious.” The hatmen have even turned to science for arguments. They say that a panama will deflect 93 per cent, of the sun’s rays, and so protect the eyes from the glare. Despite all the propaganda the ‘ Nohat Brigade” is increasing m number in Sydney, and this fact is causing the hatmen grave concern. It was stated this week that so many men were now going without a hat that many hat-makers had lost their, jobs. At a sitting of the Conciliation Council it was seriously suggested that a man who did not wear a hat should be taxed. This has given rise to a lively controversy, and, of course, the Hatmen’s Association has had its sav. It has been busy conducting researches, and it has discovered that the hatless man is more liable to eye strain than the man who coveis his head. And the face of the hatless man becomes wrinkled and careworn. , . The hatless retort that surely they are entitled to go without a hat if they .so desire. They point out, in letters to the Press, that no one would think of compelling a man to wear a singlet if he did not like singlets. One correspondent asked: “If a hatmaker does not possess a watch, will he be prepared to contribute to the upkeep of a watchmaker’s family?” The hatmakers are on dangerous ground when they start interfering with the liberty of the subject.