Racism in Society

Martin Lindstrom in Buyology first dives into the concept of subliminal messaging in Advertising. He brings up examples in all sorts of industries. The one that strikes me the most was in politics where deliberate racial messages are thrust upon us and it seems that very few even cared. Lindstrom writes “Corker and the Republican National Committee produced an ad in which every time the narrator talked about Ford, African tom-tom drums beat, just barely audible, in the background. The kicker lay in the final words: ‘Harold Ford: He’s Just Not Right.’ One could infer that what the Republican National Committee actually meant was ‘he’s just not white’“ (p. 75). We have given up on fighting for rights on advertising, but why? Why do we allow commercials be fundamentally racist and not think through the consequences on Society? For example, a company recently posted an ad on a billboard selling their vodka. The ad read, “Christmas quality, Hanukkah pricing. The billboard was quickly torn down because of its obvious inappropriateness.

This is what the normal should be. We should fight ads like these from even being considered. To do this, we need to enlighten our educational system. We have learned repeatedly, and I have even had to write multiple papers on the Holocaust and Anti-Semitism. I think it is safe to say that one would be able to understand when anything is Anti-Semitic. However, because of our inexplicable national avoidance to discussing slavery and the abuse of African Americans and Black Americans in our society during our schooling, we have not been as critical to racism as we are to the openly discussed Anti-Semitism in Germany.

It should be noted that, yes, there are attacks on sayings and mentions that are racist, but these attacks are on people that are blatantly racist such as Mel Gibson or Kramer from Seinfeld. However, what about the racism that is in our high school textbooks. The lack of a complete, analytical view of our founding fathers, and those that have followed their example. There are racial motives in every institution that we observe today including museums, schools, the DMV. Nevertheless, perhaps it is all just ritual.

We are for the most part, subliminally racist. The messages we send to our children and the future are clearly not thought out completely. Lindstrom writes, “In an increasingly standardized, sterilized, homogenous world… rituals help us differentiate one brand from another. And once we find a ritual or brand we like, isn’t there a lot of comfort in having a particular blend of coffee to brew every morning, a signature shampoo with a familiar smell, or a favorite make of running sneaker we buy year after year?” These things make us feel comfortable. It is comfortable for the majority of people to associate black clothing with “the bad guy” as Moore describes in an article in a book titled Beyond Heroes and Holidays. When the next time you are shopping, it is important to look through the ritual of the product, you are buying and instead evaluate the subliminal messages being processed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/nyregion/billboard-ad-for-wodka-vodka-called-anti-semitic-is-pulled.html

CA Blog: Somatic Markers

Within our everyday lives we experience the act of what is called somatic markers which are essentially unconscious associations within our brain that help us decide on what to buy. Within Buy-ology a great example is used by Martin Lindstrom, which speaks upon the matter of being in a grocery store deciding on which peanut-butter to buy..Skippy, peter pan etc. by instinct the consumer grabs the brand Jiffy peanut butter between all other brands on the shelf. Ever think of what makes us grab that one brand over the other? In my case, it had never dawned on me why I choose the numerous brands that I purchase. The realization is that we decide on choosing certain brands for numerous reasons whether we`re buying a car, food, or shopping forclothes somatic markers play a huge role within our decisions.

So what really makes us choose one brand over the other? To be quite frank, there are various ways our brains relate when choosing from the numerous brands we see. Somatic markers could come from childhood memories good or bad. Let’s take for example as a child perhaps your parents used Folgers coffee when you were younger and in direct correlation as an adult you chose Folgers as your coffee to use. Not only do childhood memories play a role within the world of somatic markings but advertisers play a critical role within somatic markers also; let`s take the example of Folgers coffee again. Within the Folgers commercial they play a catchy slogan, “The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup” which could be replaying in your head over and over, catchy right? That playful tune that’s played on the commercial becomes stuck in our head, as we head down the aisle to pick some coffee up, that catchy slogan comes to the top of our heads once we see Folgers brand, thus helping the consumer choose that brand to purchase! The overall goal for advertisers is to have the consumer chose their brand over the hundreds of thousands of other brands out in the market, using somatic markers helps the consumer distinguish one brand from the other. Whether it is a memory we rely on, a funny commercial, a catchy slogan, or something that celebrities and our friends have, advertisement creates these markings that fuel consumers to buy their brands.

We normally do not think about what drives us to buy the specific brands that we purchase. My reasoning’s for buying the brands that I have is usually because I`ve seen commercials for it, my friends have it, or it is something new and I want to try it. So I ask you, could you think of reasons why you chose the brands that you buy?

Pavlov's Blog

Call me crazy, but the information in the first part of Martin Linstrom’s, Buy-ology seems a lot like the experiments that Ivan Pavlov did with dogs in the early 20^th century. Picture scientists with white coats standing around the research subject, but instead of ringing the bell, the doctors are turning on the T.V. And instead of having a tube surgically inserted into a dog’s mouth, there is a human being there, donning a black shower cap with dozens of wires coming off of it, connected to a computer. As the participants watch an endless stream of advertisements, each one infused with a particular conditioning nuance, the scientists make notes on their clip boards as the subject’s brain waves react like an epileptic snake on the computer monitor. 

Although Lindstrom pays lip service to the ethical concerns neuromarketing creates, this technology is wide open for abuse. Given the automated nature of brain activity and the sway our emotions have on decision making, it is no surprise that marketing companies, politicians, the U.S Pentagon and Hollywood (Lindstrom 31)are salivating like Pavlov’s dogs to use the data from brain imaging technology to anticipate the way  people will think and act under particular stimuli. Lindstrom writes, “I knew my study could not only transform the way companies designed, marketed and advertised their products-but also help each one of us understand what is really going on inside our brains when we make decisions about what to buy” (33). I am trying to keep an open mind, but it is far-fetched to expect the general public to understand the complexity of brain activity. You can rest uneasily though, both public and private industries alike are determined to “uncover what’s already in our heads” (Lindstrom 35) and produce and market a plethora of fodder that make us drool like dogs and think it’s the greatest thing ever.

Lindstrom details the information neuroimaging studies have revealed. When a product is “integrated fully into the narrative” (Lindstrom 49) of the program the viewer, is far more apt to remember the product being advertised. As I watched Top Chef: Texas the other night, sure enough, as the chefs left the house to go to the rodeo, one of the contestants’ voices narrated the scene, “When it was time to go we all piled into the Toyota Siennas and went to the Tejas Rodeo.” Meanwhile the screen flashes images back and forth between the contests getting into a small fleet of Siennas and an assortment of shots of the Toyota Sienna. This kind of integration is pernicious! T.V, magazines, billboards, soda machines and every plate-glass window from here to East Bumblef@$% are full of some media schilling something. All the while everyone looks so happy consuming everything from soup to nuts!

At 420 words I’ll wrap this up with a not so novel idea but hopeful nonetheless. Our cultural connection to stuff and emotional satisfaction is a marketing campaign designed at selling more stuff. The scientific data reports that increasing our personal well-being occurs when we participate in acts of compassion and not in the false narrative of consumption therapy. We have to start somewhere, so check this five minute link from Graham Hill about Editing. If you are feeling particularly adventurous watch Matthieu Ricard, the happiest man in the world, talk about Habits of Happiness. Real, lasting well-being is inside us not outside.

M.Ciccone Section 01

Free Blog!

Take this Shopping Addiction Quiz.... I wasn't beyond shocked with my results =)

http://www.addicted.com/addiction-resources/self-tests/shopping-addiction-quiz

CA; Mirror Neurons + Dopamine, The One Two Punch!

You walk in to your favorite clothing store with the intent to simply browse. As you enter the establishment, your senses are immediately infiltrated. The strong fragrance of the latest cologne creeps up your nose. The blaring hipster music puts you in a trance as your eyes peer over the good looking and trend setting workers that are scattered about the store. You begin to lose touch of reality as your adrenaline kicks in. You want to be just like the models plastered all over the walls and you can be! All you need to do is buy the clothes they have and you can become who you always wanted to be! As you justify your purchases and leave the store with a migraine, you being to scan your bag for the things you just carelessly purchased. How in the world am I going to pay for this? And what the hell am I doing with a sweater vest?...

That’s advertising at its finest, exposing the weak parts of your brain and capitalizing on it. As we learned in the book Buy-ology by Martin Lindstrom, the mirror neurons in our brain were set off by what we saw in the clothing store. “Everything we observe someone else doing, we do as well in our minds”(58). As the example above spotted the workers in the store and the pictures of models plastered all over the walls, he/she wanted to become that. The mirror neurons overrode their rational thinking and caused them to unconsciously imitate and purchase what was in front of them (60). Once the dopamine set in, the euphoric feeling caused a lapse in judgment and the example ended up making purchases they did not necessarily need nor want. They would eventually come to realize this when the high wore off and the feeling subsided.

So what can we do to block the one, two punch advertisers constantly throw at us? How can we gauge what we buy and stick to purchases that we truly want? Well for one, it is only going to get harder. The future of advertising will continue to capitalize on our mirror neurons in new and inventive ways; we won’t even have time to defend ourselves. Our best defense is knowing what to expect when we enter a store (marketing strategies, etc). It is also smart for us to shop with “clear minds” so that we are focused and determined on what we are seeking. This can avoid those purchases where you are “on the fence” about a particular item but end up buying it anyway because you believe in the future your mind will change. Knowing is half the battle and I believe if we educate ourselves properly we can ward off the corporations who will subconsciously try to control our minds and wallets.

Jason Maranzino - Section 80

"Buy-ology"

Buy ology begins by diving into the psychology that lurks behind our true motives as to why we purchase the products that we do, even if they are lethal to our own health. An interesting point taken note of is the fact that the warnings on cigarette packages actually don’t rest cravings but stimulate them instead resulting in more harm than good.  

One specific point made here is that we really don’t have the control that we think we do over what we are purchasing and that our brains are subliminally dictating what we purchase. I strongly disagree with his argument, although neuroimaging provides powerful support otherwise. Neuroimaging can pose many dangers and is not even completely understood quite yet, this link discusses some of the dangers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sak6i175akY. The idea that our brain is dictating so many of these choices totally goes against what humans possess as free will. This idea totally takes any accountability off the individual and babies people into thinking that it is not their fault. That is absolutely ridiculous to believe because each person has a free will and will power to change the fact that they smoke cigarettes or over eat. This kind of supporting evidence is exactly why the United States is single handedly the most obese nation. Our culture goes by the notion that it’s not your fault when in reality in many cases it is. We as Americans have chosen to lose grasp of the understanding of community, and we have chosen to get wrapped up in material goods because of the pulsation of advertisement and the media influence on our mass culture. We choose to drive places that are in walking distance and biking distance and this plays into why the obesity rate in this country is so high.

The text also provides the idea of product placement in movies and that through scanning presents evidence that only products that have a pivotal role in a movie are remembered and most others are thrown out.  This is a strong point to make considering that companies dump millions into getting their products shown in movies. This is making the assumption that most of these product advertisements that are in movies are pointless and a waste of money.  I find it hard to believe that the ads don’t mean anything with the amount of market research and money spent on these different ads. My question is does this research take into consideration that idea of repeated viewing or people who watch movies that appeal to them 3 or 4 times because they like them so much. I can’t imagine that the viewers that watch certain films multiple times don’t take note of a greater number of the advertisements.

Robert McLarney

Section 01

CA Blog; Mirror Neurons and Consumerism

Like most other good-to-do Americans, I frequent my local movie theatre from time to time. When a movie ‘catches my eye’, whether it be a 30 second trailer in between the new episode of Mad Men, or an overly enthused rant from my one of my buddies, I make a some-what serious attempt (nothing I do is really that serious) to go see it. Recently, I saw Drive, a movie featuring Ryan Gosling, which tells a tall tale of a race car driver who gets in with the wrong people for what he sees as the right reasons. Let’s discard the IMDB synopsis, though. What is important, however, is the feeling I came away with after leaving the theatre- I felt like a bad-ass. Why? Because Ryan Gosling is a boss, and not only is he a boss, he is a boss driver. Did you see the jet-black mustang? Did you see his craftsmanship in handling that magnificent beast? Of course you did. And of course, if you are a creature built of testosterone, you envied Gosling’s skill at driving, and what’s more, you envied the medium in which he performed this action- his mustang. Needless to say, my drive home (which in a dinky Civic is usually as thrilling as drinking my morning tea) was the most exhilarating of recent memory. Take a look:

This imitation on my part, my desire to be like Gosling, connects to our text, Buy-ology, by Martin Lindstrom, in regards to what the author cites as mirror neurons. Lindstrom explores this phenomena by relating our consumer potential to what we view, whether in movies (like my current obsession with black Mustangs) or in windows, and how the latter impacts the former. In an attempt to visualize mirror neurons at work, Lindstrom portrays a theoretical teen passing by Abercrombie models, and the effects it has on the consumer; “Let’s say you’re a socially uncertain fourteen-year-old. As you pass by the store, your mirror neurons fire up. You can imagine yourself among them: popular, desired, at the center of it all” (Lindstrom 65). What’s vital to our understanding of mirror neurons is not simply that we like to imitate other’s belongings; we strive to imitate the behaviors of those we see as “cool”. Companies that can successfully exploit our desire to be cool indeed exploit our behavior. We like ‘cool’: That kid is cool. In addition, his Converse are cool. I am going to buy a similar pair.

Earlier in the book, Lindstrom also touches on the consumer’s behavior that emotion trumps reason. In a study highlighting the difference between Pepsi and Coke, unknowingly consumers preferred Pepsi over Coke, but once known which of the two drinks volunteers would absorb, almost always Coke trumped Pepsi. Thus, we can appropriate Pepsi to our ‘rational thinking’, and Coke to our ‘emotional’ thinking. Lindstrom says, “…two areas in the brain were engaged in a mute tug-of-war between rational and emotional thinking” (Lindstrom 26). Lindstrom also touches on product placement and the often-failed attempts that companies commit to this phenomenon. In order for product placement to be successful, Lindstrom says that the specific product must be fully “integrated into the program” (Lindstrom 49).

 
Do you think that the concept of mirror-neurons and their use in advertising is bound to be the next big thing in the world of marketing, or do you think the traditional methods of 30-second commercials will retain their hold on commercial America?

Subliminal advertisements; Product Placement

Martin Lindstrom buy-ology helps the consumer to look more at the psychological reasons as to why we purchase particular brands of products. The book looks at the neuromarketing to our subconscious which is the key to unlocking our buy-ology (pg 3 buy-ology). Neuromarketing is about implanting the product in our subconscious so that way the consumer will purchase the product (example Coke & American Idol). However with neuromarketing to the consumer there are several questions to ask; are we buying things we need? Could we be buying products that have just been placed in our subconscious? As consumers do we feel what these advertisers are doing is right?

The strategic way merchandisers & Hollywood combine there forces to achieve the ultimate goal of the all mighty dollar is really what it is all about. Product placement may have recently become more noticeable to the consumer but it has been around for decades, almost since the dawn of the film and television era. As early as the film industry started Hollywood saw the connection between a profit for there pockets and a way for a particular company to boost its sales by having the product fit into the story line. One of the first subliminal advertisements that I can remember is the Reese’s Pieces candies that were used to draw out the extra terrestrial (E.T). However Reese’s was not Spielberg’s first candy choice, he first approached M&Ms. Spielberg first contacted the Mars Company and asked if they would pay to have their product used in the movie E.T. they passed on the idea and then Hershey agreed to step in and with in a few months of the films release there Reese Pieces were begin stocked in over 800 movie theater shelves (pg 45 buy-ology). Product placement was used in many films way before E.T. but that is one of the first films which I recall seeing a product used within the story and that truly is how neuromarketing works, having the product being sold to us with our us even realizing it.

Fast forward to television and the same thing is happening in shows today; one of the most common is Coca-Cola used in American Idol. Coca-Cola has been around for decades but by placing there product in a show which is viewed by millions world wide they boost there product sales. Coca-Cola has integrated its self in the show, by having the coke cups which sit in front of the judges ect. Coca-Cola has affiliated its self with the dreams, aspirations and hopes of becoming the next American Idol (pg 50 buy-ology), basically saying drink a coke and they can help your dreams come true. When choosing the best appeal for your product it generally requires market research in order to place your product in its correct target market. The question is are the American people buying more due to the current surge of the product placement? That would depend on how integrated the product has become to the story line of the movie or show. There are thousands of products that are used in the industry and thousand of thirty second advertisements we see every day, a lot of these images we can hardly recall but the ones that become part of the production we can remember because of this neuromarketing to consumers. When it comes time to shop we might sway more towards a Reese's Pieces or Coca-Cola as opposed to purchasing from there competitors. There is some benefit with neuromarketing for everyone except the consumer because sometimes we might end up with products we don’t even need.
AnneMarie Esemplare Sec. 80

The Problems of Neuromarketing

Martin Lindstrom’s book, Buyology, offers an in-depth look at the psychological reasons why consumers buy the products they do. Indeed, Lindstrom defines Buyology as “the multitude of subconscious forces that motivate us to buy” (6). Lindstrom goes on to say that the new science of neuromarketing “is the key to unlocking…our Buyology” (3), as it will allow scientists to peer into the human brain and witness these subconscious forces in action. By seeing what drives consumers to buy, scientists and marketers will be able to make products and advertisements capable of tempting the irrational, subconscious part of our minds. Although this may seem scary, even immoral, Lindstrom praises neuromarketing as a science that will be used for the good of consumers as well as advertisers. He states that “neuromarketing is not about implanting ideas in people’s brains, or forcing them to buy what they don’t want to buy” (35). Instead, Lindstrom believes that neuromarketing will actually give consumers more control “because the more we know about why we fall prey to the tricks and tactics of advertisers, the better we can defend ourselves” (Lindstrom 5). Furthermore, he asserts that neuromarketing will give consumers more meaningful products that will satisfy marketers and consumers alike by “earn[ing] more money and satisfy[ing] consumers at the same time” (Lindstrom 5).

Lindstrom’s views concerning neuromarketing, however, are very narrow-minded. Once marketers know exactly how to engage the subconscious minds of consumers, they will have a tremendous amount of power in influencing us to buy whatever they want to sell us. The subconscious mind is, as Lindstrom admits, irrational, and if marketers can influence that part of a consumer’s mind, they could potentially make consumers spend money in irrational ways. Perhaps neuromarketing could allow marketers to sell us products that we really want, but at what cost? After all, neuromarketing may allow marketers to sell products powerful enough to make people pay anything for them. The result may be that people are selling their homes and their savings to buy an emotionally powerful product. Is this really a good thing for society? This link, while somewhat quirky, offers a glimpse into the dangers of neuromarketing.

Lindstrom also fails to take into account the problems of over-consumption. Hyper consumption has already reached a breaking point in our society; as it has become increasingly unsustainable. If neuromarketing becomes the main means of selling products, consumption may finally reach its breaking point. Rather than trying to peer into people’s brains in order to sell more products, perhaps we should be looking for ways to make people want to consume less. Maybe the problem is not trying to find out what material things people really want, but what emotional and mental needs people have. By doing this, maybe consumption can be curbed.

Several questions arise from these points. Is neuromarketing ethical? Is it dangerous? Is it good for consumers? In our already over-extended consumer society, is neuromarketing what we really need?

Tom Reilly, Section 01

buy-ology

While the concept of Neuromarketing is intriguing I couldn't help but thinking that Mr Lindstrom was self promoting, even bragging. Sentences similar to the following littered the sixty seven pages we had to read, "If you look around chances are pretty good you'll find my branding fingerprints are all over your house or apartment...(Lindstrom 16)", "Here, I cant help but be reminded of one of my numerous hotel visits(Lindstrom 1)." And since he is a global branding expert could this book not be more for the purposes of him telling us what we should be drawn too instead of what his research tells us our brains are pulling us towards subconsciously? Its true i might be over thinking it, which i wouldn't be offended if anyone decided to agree with, but those are just my initial beliefs. Hopefully by the end of the book my thoughts on Martins reasons for writing this book will have changed.

He used the most sophisticated brain scanning instruments such as the SST which shows what parts of your brain are being stimulated in real time and fMRI scans which track the amount of oxygen and glucose that are being rushed to certain parts of your brain. Basically him and his team of experts and ethics panel are trying to find out what makes you buy or not buy certain things. His wide array of study subjects included not only Americans, but Germans, people from China, Japan and England. His results show that although you may think you know why you buy, or don't buy things your subconscious has much more to do with your decision making than you think. For example many times we purchase things because they bring back good memories, or happy thoughts even if we like the competing object just as much or even more! We might purchase items because we think we need to, to show others we care about a certain cause or social standard. Previous thoughts on how marketing should be conducted was once based entirely on focus groups, or customer surveys. Now however these old ways of gathering consumer information are being judged as invalid and even just wrong, stating that our conscious thoughts are not as impacting on our actions as our subconscious ideas. Could this be true?

Although i do see truth behind this new way of researching why people like what they like and buy what they buy, I myself have been in paid focus groups and i believe that the information that companies gather from such meetings is valuable as well.

Click here to learn about how someone other than Martin Lindstrom explains Neuromarketing. (video and article)

CA: The Right Medicine

Affluenza is not only a problem that is affecting people, but our Earth is paying for it as well. The products we buy are not “designed to save the planet, they’re designed to make money” (Affleunza, 198). Once we are finished with the old version of the product, it will most likely end up in landfills or dumps, and will sit there for many years; some may last up to one million years. Certain materials are not even biodegradable. It’s sad to think that we use these products for such a short period of time, but they will outlive us, times 10. According to Affluenza, 80% of the products we buy are thrown away after a single use (198)! That is a crazy percentage. At this rate, human waste is soon going to take over the globe.
But there is a way consumers can help. Howard Geller suggests if “affleunza compels us to buy something,” we might as well make it environmentally friendly (199). Buying products that are environmentally friendly will not just help the earth, but will benefit the consumer as well. One ideal product that consumers can purchase when they can’t help their Affluenza, is a home wind turbine. Although it may seem costly right up front, these wind turbines will reduce your energy bill, and eventually pay for itself. Each person who chooses a wind turbine will help change the planet. Wind turbines are already supplying energy for millions of people (Affleunza, 204). When you install environmentally friendly products like these, the government will give back a yearly tax credit. This is a hidden prize for being nice to the planet. And in high wind states, it will lead to an economic boom (204).
Letting Affluenza infect you is almost inevitable in this day of age, but it can be used for good. We can find “the right medicine” by choosing products that help our planet grow, not destroy it. We need to get more people to realize the impact this disease has on us. It is not only wasting our money, space, and energy, but it is also harming our planet, which is the only one we have. Trying out a product like this Sauer Energy Wind Charger will help move our planet, as well the consumption, in the right direction.

Sauer Energy Cartoon Video from Joe Gandy on Vimeo.

CA Blog: Affluenza: Problem of the Wealthy

The book Affluenza by John De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor offers a look into how American society is addicted to consumption. They describe this through the use of a disease titled affluenza. In chapter 21, they offer a self-diagnostic test to see how severe your affluenza may be. They explain this test as "admittedly unscientific"(174). This begins the many problems that this tests presents. Because it is unscientific it automatically offers several distinct biases. First the test is designed to ensure that a person answers yes to certain questions for example question 30 asks, "Are you unable to to identify more than three wildflowers that are native to your area?"(175). This question is biased so that you get more people to say yes because the majority of people would not know 3 species of wildflowers. Even if you wanted to know, your means of finding out only contribute to the so called pandemic of Affluenza. This question is designed to raise scores, even though wildflower detection has no bearing upon shopping or consuming (unless of course you are using the wildflower for consumption, but then you would answer no to this question).

Second, it does not take into account ability to choose any other answer. For example question 5 asks, "Do you buy home-improvement products in a large chain store rather than the neighborhood hardware store?"(174). This can leave no option to yes or no for the taker because the only store in their town may be the large hardware store. If their even is a neighborhood store, you could also argue that the large store offers lower prices that a family might want to take advantage of in these tough economic times.

Third, it offers questions which people will say yes to because of their lifestyle. Question 50 asks, "Do you eat meat nearly everyday?"(176). Although meat may contribute to consumption, we need to eat to survive and some people like eating meat. Some people like being vegan or vegetarian and have their reasons, but for some people the most fulfilling thing in the world is sitting down after a long day at work and eating a juicy, tender cheeseburger and drink a cold beer. Some people are fulfilled by knowing that they saved an animal, but that animal is already destined to be killed and in fact is only alive to be killed and consumed. If you disagree with the means that animals are suffering from that is fine, but I believe it is a right that "Americans" (I am using this as a term to include past, present, and future peoples of the United States) have earned through years of work and dedication.

Finally, the rest of the book continues to talk about ways we can reduce Affluenza. This book may be exaggerating the point to which individual families consume. For my family we usually take a vacation once a year for a week to either South Carolina or elsewhere around the United States. My parents work hard for their money and have earned the right to spend their money however they please. The book says that Americans spend too much time working, but then criticizes them for going on expensive vacations. You cannot have it both ways when people are not working in affluent countries they want to spend their money on things they enjoy. (And who am I to judge and say that shopping is a harmful form of self fulfillment) Every person has their own interests and own things that bring themselves joy. Even though Americans consume more than any other country, we must also acknowledge the facts that the book Affluenza creates a conflicting opinion and in my opinion ignores some key factors that contribute to American consumption.

Adam Shanley (Section 1)

Free Blog

I wanted to share this video I found on YouTube about brands.  The film is 40 minutes long but it is very interesting and brings up a lot of the issues relevant to our class.  Naomi Klein discusses how companies realized that their success was not in the actual product itself, it was in the brand name, an idea, a lifestyle and a meaning (No Logo).  She shows how companies marketed these ideas to, for example, young people and cars.  Car companies capitalized on the love of young people to listen to music in their cars.  They ran commercials with teens dancing and singing in their cars, selling them the idea (No Logo).  Lately, as Klein interprets the situation, there has been a push or resistance to these ideas and she gives reasons why this has happened.  People began to notice and expose the harmful side effects of globalization.

No Logo

Oleg Morgunov

Section 01

Minimalism

People have taken different approaches to dealing with the current economic situation. While some people spend their time extreme couponing, searching for the best bargains or digging themselves deeper into debt, others are taking an entirely different approach. There has been a rise in minimalism, or living with less, over the past few years. In Affluenza, John De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor refer to the idea of “voluntary simplicity” which is described by Cecile Andrews as a way for people to “meet their real needs instead of the false needs that advertisers create. They learn to live in ways that are high fulfillment, but low environmental impact,” (p. 184). This movement is similar to the Minimalist movement that has been on the rise over the past few years. Both movements, has well as many other living with less movements, are focused mainly on the reduction of material items to counteract the growing consumerism in our country, as well as finding a deeper meaning in life through the elimination of these items.

Bloggers such as, Joshua Becker of “Becoming Minimalist” and Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus of “The Minimalists” write about their experiences in simplifying their lives. They offer help, support and ideas for others who are considering becoming minimalists themselves. Joshua Becker provides a list of “101 Things That Can Be Reduced In Your Home” in one of his entries, which contains items that many people would view as household staples, including pots, pans, mirrors and towels. While he’s not suggesting that one get rid of all of these items entirely, he is suggesting that people cut down on each to the fewest number necessary. Additionally, Joshua Becker suggests increasing the use of technology in life so as to cut down on the number of possessions one owns. In an interview with Christina Hernandez Sherwood for the article “Becoming minimalist: when having fewer possessions means living a better life” Becker states, “There are times when technology makes minimalism very easy. For example, with the Kindle you don’t have to own physical books. [With scanners] we can scan our papers and documents. [With] digital cameras, you’re able to store your photos digitally. You don’t need to get a newspaper delivered to your home. You can read it online. But it’s easy to go too far. The collection of technology to collect technology becomes cumbersome. Technology needs support and time and energy to invest in it. There’s a balancing act of using it to make your life simpler, but also not complicating your life.”

While this idea has been around for decades, it has taken on a new form with the growth of technology. Blogs and online forums have become a new form of the “study circles” mentioned in Affluenza. Technology also has allowed for people to own fewer physical items, but one must also wonder, is the increased use of technology rather than physical belongings just a different form of consumption? Are people truly cutting down on consumerism if they are instead relying on computers, Kindles, scanners and digital cameras? Many minimalists set a target number of items they would like to cut down to, do you think the average American could cut down to just 100 items like some of these minimalists?