The article that most astonished me from this week’s readings was, “The Sexual Sell” by Betty Friedan. She discusses how our society sells us things we do not need. It her study, the sale of products was aimed specifically at women. The 1950s ideal family was the stay at home mother and the providing father. Companies that wanted to sell their products hired people for their professional services to help them sell their products (Friedan 17). One individual was paid enormous amounts of money created the Institute of Motivational Manipulation, which researched women to manipulate them to buy certain products even though they did not really need them.
There is a big difference between manipulation and influence. Manipulation is having an affect on someone that would lead to them to do some kind of harm. Influence is having affect on someone that will lead them to do some kind of good. Today we see that we cannot just continue to consume and consume without consequences. Back in the day however, consumption was viewed as a necessity to enrich the country. Housewives in the 1950s were the test subjects of manipulation. They were manipulated to purchase more products that they already had or things they did not need. They were not influenced to try new products they were forcefully targeted so companies could make a greater profit.
Even this video from the 1950s states that, “mass consumption makes you the most powerful giant in the land.” The idea was to consume, consume and consume without a break. We realized however, that we cannot just continue to consume everything in sight. It is true that our purchasing power makes us one of the greatest nations in the world but there has to be a limit. We have to be considerate of our future generations and not allow ourselves to over consume.
Oleg Morgunov Section 01
It is definitely clear that we must cut down our consumption, especially of unsustainable energy and fuels, or we will continue to run our economy deeper into the ground. At least in the 50's when we manufactured nearly everything inside of our own borders, we built quality products to last. Now, along with a technology boom that outdates itself every 6 months causing us to upgrade to new products at an even faster rate, we have a waste crisis too. We consume and throw out, consume and throw out, over and over with no proper regulations set up to compensate for all of the waste we are creating at light speed. Learning how to slow down consumption is one step towards helping us get back on our feet and and the planet recycle the trash.
ReplyDeleteAs a populace we are obsessed with consumption and things we do not need, yet desire more than things that actually help to keep us alive. We live to consume, and some can go without purchasing offal that no one would normally desire. Using a sexual trigger in order to make a product seem more attractive then it actually is is rather underhanded. But since living things evolved the abilities to attract mates to literally sell themselves at the beginning of the known evolution of multi celled organisms it’s not exactly a new idea. Yes the 50’s loved to consume, but they were at an all time high, nothing could touch them. They were allowed to partake as much as they possibly could because of the joint reason of the fact that they had less people and more resources. Both of these states are something that we just don’t have these days. If we don’t really look at ourselves and understand that we cannot keep this mentality we’ll damn ourselves. It will take some swallowing of pride to admit that we need to change, but it is very important that we do it soon, before we completely exhaust the not so endless flow of resources that we have.
ReplyDeleteI like the points you make about influence and manipulation. The perspective that influence has positive connotations and manipulation is negative is especially accurate considering the whole actual need versus generated wants argument. Whether it’s the “creative marketing” to housewives or, what I think of as, the exploitation of the under eighteen market segments, there is a pervasive effort to get people to buy stuff. I think the authors of Affluenza really hit the nail on the head in the section titled, “Socially Sanctioned Addiction”. The decades old marketing barrage has connected emotional well-being with shopping and buying and therefore created, “‘a very socially acceptable way to be addictive, to get a temporary high, to feel good.’(Graff, Wan, Naylor 49)” This kind of profits before principles marketing is sad and upsetting. Do we really have a choice when every form of mass media is bombarding us with commercial advertisements that are loaded with physiologically manipulative imagery, coercing us to buy, buy, and buy!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that manipulation is the better word to describe a lot of advertisement and the video posted is a great example of some of the effects that can come with constant consumption. Without a doubt a lot of blame needs to be placed on the advertisement companies for bearing extinct morals, but at the same time a lot of the blame needs to be placed on the consumers and our culture as a whole. It needs to be made a point to educate people about advertisement and being able to see through it and actively consume the items that we can afford as well as the items that we actually need. Consuming items that aren’t needed nor can be afforded is a huge problem and if we want to be considerate of the future generations then we need to be sure to educate from a young age as to how to see through these advertising campaigns and how to budget our money correctly. We as a society need to not put so much emphasis on luxury items such as nice cars etc. and focus more on reality and relay this in our schools so people in the future can consume intelligently and not be so easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteRobbie McLarney
Section 01
That video made your point crystal clear. Although i cant bring myself to blame advertising companies for doing what they do. I mean its what they get paid for, and if your good at it, then more power to you! If you are able to be pushed to buy something that you know you dont need then that should be something you think about and fix yourself. Not something that should be blamed on other doing their jobs as best they can. We need to be able to distinguish between things we want and things we need, although that may be hard at times its a skill that is quite essential and can save us hundreds if not thousands through our lifetimes. Robbie was right when he said that we need to stop putting so much focus on owning the nicest cars and luxury items. We should all learn to use something until its done or useless instead of upgrading to the newest and best thing that comes out. Because if we do that then we will all be throwing money out the window with all of the "upgraded" versions of everything were going to have to purchase.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on your blog, it is clear that we have increased our consumption rates drastically since the 1950s. I believe we consume more now than in the years before because there is more “stuff” available to buy. As John De Graff points out in his book Affluenza, “Seeing so much leads to impulse buying.” (15) I agree with his statement, the more we see the more we want. We desire newer and better things even though the things we have are still satisfactory. In my opinion, we will continue to consume as a society at high levels as long as more is made available to us for consumption. When the availability of goods in this country is made less that’s the day we will see less consumption.
ReplyDeleteThe video proves your point exactly. Not only were all those objects unnecessary, but Ed was receiving a sense of accomplishment while being able to afford those spontaneous purchases. By consuming more, he felt he was aiding his country and doing well for his family by supplying them with these items. What was interesting however was that as soon as he had spent those 11 dollars, which was a good amount of money back in those days, Ed took out a "Bank Book" to see how he can support his family and put his son through college and still have the "purchasing power" needed to buy these useless objects. This leads to the idea of having all the essentials, and consuming in excess of that, while still being well off.
ReplyDeleteI believe the marketing machine directed towards women has created a continuous cycle that has a “go and buy “effect that’s hard to break. The average homemaker/housewife is subjected to so many commercials during the day that she is inevitably drawn in and the compulsion to buy “something” usually takes root. Page 42-43 of the article “The Sexual Sell” (Friedan) points out several of the selling points that play to their needs. Being a better cook, keeping a cleaner house, being a better mother and things like this help confirm her as a successful homemaker therefore drive her to buy these type products. Additionally steps are taken to play to her vanity by advertising beauty products to keep her looking her best.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though the culture of post-World War II America was centered on proving how powerful and affluent American society was. For a family in 1950s America, the proliferation of material goods was the ultimate proof that they were at the top of the most advanced society in the world. The place to display these goods was primarily in the domestic sphere, which, in the 1950s and 1960s, was the sphere of women. As a result, it is no surprise that advertisers tried to appeal to women to but their products. The United States is different now; women and men don’t have the separate spheres that existed in the middle of the twentieth century, and mass consumption has come to be seen, at least in some ways, as harmful, rather than helpful to American society. The focus now has shifted from consuming as much as possible to prove our power and progress, to trying to consume intelligently to prove our power and progress.
ReplyDeleteTom Reilly, Section 01.
Today, there is definitely a blur in difference between influence and manipulation. I agree that manipulation can cause harm but influence can also lead someone to be pressured as well as inspired. Housewives might have been manipulated by the effect of the socioeconomic status when it came to owning “things” but other housewives within the community could have also influenced the rapid growth in household items deemed necessary or solely material.
ReplyDeleteI agree that manipulation and influence are two very different things. When we think of what it means to 'influence' somebody, we think of something that has a foundation - a logical connection that allows the influence to make sense and be acceptable between both the 'buyer' and 'seller' of influence. On the other hand, manipulation's foundation lies in things that are artificial or not real, or creating artificial wants with scare tactics which was done to women a lot in 20th century advertising. For example, influence would mean buying bananas because someone told me they are affordable and healthy, whereas manipulation would be buying bananas because someone told me that if I don't eat bananas then no one will talk to me.
ReplyDeleteModern day advertisers utilize the findings of science and psychological studies in order to appeal to the most basic of instincts in people. The focus on the specific types of housewives shows the research behind developing an understanding of the consumer's psychological needs.
ReplyDeleteThe distinctions made between the "Balanced Housewife", "True Housewife", and the "Would-Be Career Woman" are made according to their typical ideologies, their subconscious desires, and their conscious desires. A "Balanced Housewife" is considered the ideal consumer "from the market standpoint" while the "Would-Be Career Woman" is "unhealthy" from the same perspective.
"Seventy-five percent of all consumer advertising budgets" were spent on women in 1963, and that number has likely stayed the same today. It would be interesting to hear Friedan's opinions in regards to shows such as Real Housewives that depict housewives who can consume with millions of dollars at their disposal with the world to see.
I find your comments regarding the differences between manipulation and influencing as really intriguing. Taking into consideration that I am a woman and the majority of this weeks readings focused on women and how we have been almost duped into consuming throughout American history it really had me reflecting. I am a self-proclaimed shopping addict. I don’t know what it is but I get a high off of thinking I got some type of deal. This article forced me to stop and think about whether or not I have been manipulated or influenced to feel this way. For example, I’ve noticed stores like Marshalls and TJMaxx, that offer discount designer goods, have been getting a lot more advertisement lately (these of course are the stores I get the biggest thrills from). Initially, when I began shopping at these places I felt as though I was winning, like this was my secret spot to score great deals, however after reading this article I began to think that maybe I was really just manipulated into thinking that in the first place. Obviously, my world has been shaken.
ReplyDelete-Kara Kiensicki (01)
I like the connection you made between marketing techniques from the 150s and the abundance of waste we have today. It shows that everything has a consequence.
ReplyDeleteThe work manipulation is good usage and perfectly describes how the consumer is advertised to. It is interesting that a big target was directed at female consumers, and possibly this has to do with a psychological reason. We have over consumed and everything now is going green, but perhaps we are too late to save ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI thought you posted an excellent video to address the main points in your blog. I agree with your point that modern consuming is drastically out of hand. Repercussions will likely emerge in our society over time from over consuming. I believe the future generations will be the ones to take the toll and it will be up to them to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteThe points made regarding the "The Sexual Sell" by Betty Friedan in the previous blog were fairly accurate. However, the sexual sell being referred to by Friedan has more to do with replacing the women's need to express her sexuality with the role of the housewife as discussed in lecture. The role of housewife allowed for the typical American woman in the 1950's to become accustomed to being the caretaker of the household. In maintaining cleanliness and orderliness in the home, women began to yearn to perfect their craft as caretaker of the living domain. This argument was undoubtedly one of the most intriguing of the semester thus far. I feel the sexual sell referred to by Friedan is still very much prevalent in today's society. Just this weekend, I observed my mother and her obsession of being caretaker of the household. Whether it's from organizing her assortment of coupons for cleaning supplies or her daily trip to the supermarket; manipulators, as referred to in the blog, have done a marvelous job in creating a market for being the ideal housewife.
ReplyDelete