Buy a Beautyrest for about 1½ cents a night – in 1949

The same Beautyrest would cost you half-a-cent more – per night – in 1953!

1949 advertisement for Beautyrest mattresses

1949 adver­tise­ment above from The Sat­ur­day Evening Post, April 5 1949, asks:
“Can you afford about 1½ cents a night”for a Beau­tyrest mattress?

1953 adver­tise­ment below from Woman’s Home Com­pan­ion, Novem­ber 1953,
ups the night­ly cost to less than 2¢ a night!

1953 advertisement for Beautyrest mattresses

Here are the calculations

The 1949 adver­tise­ment reads:“Did you ever look at it this way? Is a pen­ny and a half a night too much to pay for the health­ful, refresh­ing lux­u­ry rest Beau­tyrest gives you.

Mil­lions of Beau­tyrest own­ers say it’s worth more!

Here’s the sim­ple arith­metic of it. Beau­tyrest costs only $59.50, and it’s guar­an­teed for 10 years. Divide 10 years by $59.50–and it comes out to only about 1½ cents a night!”

The 1953 adver­tise­ment reads:“ Why set­tle for a mat­tress that just offers firm­ness, when you can get firm­ness AND com­fort in a Beau­tyrest? Beau­tyrest resists just enough for the pos­ture-right support…and yields just enough for sleep-invit­ing comfort.

Only Beau­tyrest offers a choice of firm­ness: Extra-Firm or Nor­mal-Firm. Ten-year guar­an­tee brings $69.50 price to less than 2¢ a night.”

Compare the images demonstrating the differences
between an “ordinary” mattress and a Beautyrest

The 1949 adver­tise­ment uses a sim­ple out­line; four years lat­er the illus­tra­tion is more life­like but the claim is similar.

The “tor­ture test” of 1949 with the pho­to of a  275lb roller pound­ing Beau­tyrest 740,744 more times than any oth­er mat­tress test­ed is down­grad­ed in 1953 to a three line para­graph. But the claim that the Beau­tyrest lasts over twice as long as the next best mat­tress test is expand­ed to two, three and four times longer than any oth­er mattresses.


740,744! What happened when the 275lb roller dropped one more time—the 740,745th time?

Several other posts on our Printing Times website
show how copywriters use unsupported numbers

Pal­mo­live Soap, claimed “36 lead­ing skin spe­cial­ists proved in actu­al tests on 1285 women that “Soft­er, Smoother, Love­li­er Skin—that School­girl Com­plex­ion Look—can eas­i­ly be yours. What’s more, these doc­tors found that Palmolive’s Beau­ty Plan is unques­tion­ably bet­ter for your skin than ‘just aver­age care’ with any lead­ing soap.”

Camels cig­a­rettes claimed that fam­i­ly physi­cians, sur­geons, diag­nos­ti­cians, nose and throat spe­cial­ists, doc­tors in every branch of medicine…a total of 113,597 doctors…were asked the question:”What cig­a­rette do you smoke?” And more of them named Camel as their smoke than any oth­er cigarette.”

Where did those num­bers orig­i­nate? We won­der. But then sim­i­lar claims can be found in today’s adver­tis­ing. Noth­ing changes!