"Changes"

One thing that I always found unique about people is that we are constantly surronded by each other and are put in situations on a daily basis were we have to work with each other in many different ways. There has always been a common ground for most people and that is to live life and be comfortable while doing so. What I mean by this statement is that people know that they have to work in order to have a life style were they feel comfortable. and experience joy from their hard work. Money controls and runs everything around us and everyone that has ever worked a long day or provides for their family understands. Although, cash is king in mostly every circumstance, people like to help each other out because it feels good to make someones day easier. To a certain extent, there is not much of this going around in communities today. It is a different day and age and the connection between consumer and the provider is almost non existant. Times have changed and family run shops and bussiness such as the ones down the street that everyone can relate to have been replaced with big companies and organziations that supply all of our needs or goods that they make you think you need. Along with the change, it makes neighborhoods not as close and connected as it once was. Such as chatting with your neighboor in the corner store deli or getting your haircut at the barber, were if you were short a couple bucks they would help you out. These type of stores have been replaced with walmarts, supercuts and quickchecks. The amount of play dates with children has gone done due to the era of video games and children become obese from hanging out on the couch all day and not getting any exeercise. Children are not interacting with each other and are missing out on important life skills. Video game companies are controling some kids childhoods by making video games that are addictting to some kids. From an early age, we as Americans are taught to value the possessions that we have. This has been engraved in our minds since a young age because everything that you buy or have has been purchased at one time or another and hard earned money was spent on it. Times have changed and the days of interacting with each other in an close enviroment have been replaced with computers, big companies, other various circumstances that make world more high-tech, but sheilding our communities.

"FREE BLOG"

Interesting video I found on youtube --Psychology of Consumer Behavior

Check on this link -->
http://youtu.be/P1rICrAwDAc

*Donna Fricano
Section 80

CA:Blog Diagnosing the Problem

From the beginning of the book Affluenza I knew that the prognosis of America would not be good. We’ve been sick for a while now and our fervor with Capitalism has turned into a fever and guttural death howl. The problem is partially attributed to a subject that Marx feared and wrote about in his Manifesto. The bourgeois are perpetrating a feeling where “all that is solid melts into air”. To put it bluntly, instead of the small towns and hamlets that our fathers and grandfathers grew up with we have the large cities and megalith suburban areas of impartiality. We do not, as the book says have anywhere to go for that warmth of connection and camaraderie with those like us. We are living increasingly isolated lives. This impartiality also comes from a practice called chaining. When the small stores run by families get bought out, the town becomes less of a town and more of a large congregation of stores that people live around for convenience. In our drive to acquire and live more privileged lives we also cocoon ourselves in the ubiquitous gated community. It’s a good thought on paper, a safe area with like-minded individuals and perfect lawns that children can play in and community events can be held without fear. Sadly suburbia isn’t like this idyllic picture. The swathing of your family unit in a small content group, save for the most basic social cues seems to be the number of the day. “Gain the world and lose the soul” the reading intones. I think they are entirely correct, there is an emptiness in our possessions, and no matter what we buy on some level we lie to ourselves that this will be the thing that makes us happy and not the human contact that we so crave. It’s not even those simply seeking to be alone, rather I think it’s those that seek the addiction of diversion, this endless diversion is a rose-colored lens in which to view your depleted existence. To want and desire is not a bad thing, for that is what built people from the animals we evolved from. We didn’t want to just survive, we wanted to excel, and from that drive we now stand upon the mountain of our discarded previous ‘needs’ in order to reach the next unattainable thing. Were should the line be drawn, those that have a lot might be truly content, but where is the place where most would decide to stop if they were offered an almost endless well of free compensation? Would they get enough to live a modest life with their family in a representation of the American Dream? Or would they claw for as much as they could muster, driving competition in their ranks and alienating each other until we see factions sitting upon their piles of hard-won things guarding and compiling so as to only brag to others. I think we are reaching for the former.

CA Blog: Loss of Real Connection

In modern America, real connection is much harder to find between citizens. Additionally, there is a struggle amongst people in modern societies to find unique roles. Consequently, we see people trying compensate through consumption. Advertising attracts those who are in search for meaning. Affluenza states, "whether it's a new set of golf clubs or a walk-in closet full of sweaters and shoes, having the right stuff and sending the right signal somehow reassures addictive buyers" (110). We are drawn to the of using fashion to complete our personality. In Alex Kotlowitz's exempt, "False Connections," the author agrees saying, "in the end, fashions are just that- fashions. some kids yearn for baggy jeans or a Tommy Hilfiger shirt not because of what it represents but because it is the style of their peers." I find fashion one of the, if not the most, intriguing obsessions of the global economy for its affect on all ages and races. If you are interested, I pose this question to you: In what ways does "sending the right message somehow reassure addictive buyers"?

"False Connections"

The essay “False Connections” by Alex Kotlowitz published in 1999 was an introduction to what wasn’t an off the wall concept then and has really become commonplace and the norm within the last 10 years in regards to the Hip-hop economy (Business Library). Kotlowitz’s piece touches on several important aspects urban consumption; trend-setting, buying power and the “romanticization of urban poverty by some white teens”. (p.256) First he points out the fact that some of today’s fashions have originated in urban areas. Thru pop culture and aggressive marketing, high profile brands such as Hilfiger, Nike, Lauren and Coach are able to present products as desirable to wider audiences than they would normally reach. He also makes note of how the limited resources of black youths in urban areas did not deter them from using those resources to buy items that gave them a connection with their suburban counterparts and thus as consumers, “claim membership to the larger community”. (p.257). Additionally, he states that “the life of the ghetto kids is edgy, gutsy, risky-all that adolescents crave”.  (p.257).

In plain terms what is being communicated, is that inner city teens, whose normal dress code has a certain allure to their suburban white counterparts, and alternately what is considered the norm for the suburban teens drives to some extent purchases of the urban teens has create a cross exchange of supposed cultures but not a true one because the only common denominator is clothing. Lifestyles and living conditions still remain the same. This is detailed in the book, Everything But The Burden by Greg Tate. The style, fashion and dress for the Generation X and Y’ers have blended and connected  the young adults in America in such a way that race and color have less of a bearing on who is wearing what now. The beneficiary of all this are the clothing companies that are able to reap the profits of the sale of the clothing being purchased by both groups. Again, clever marketing thru music, print and TV have made a mostly American experience a worldwide arena for consumption.

 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1994/05/16/79288/index.htm

Antoine Meredith Section 80

CA Blog: Save Our Souls

This Political cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star. This brings the question: Where has American’s soul gone?

The soul according to dictionary.com is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action

in humans...The emotional part of human nature." Consumption and capitalism in present America is as follows, gain as much as possible through whatever means possible. This man, depicted as a downtrodden Uncle Sam, who is surrounded by garbage and the word ism, is asking where the Capital from Capitalism went. Capitalism, which initially created for the good of the nation, has turned to individualism, in which people are to get the most they can. This shift in what capitalism has become has left the American soul battered and weak. In "Affluenza" by Jodn De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas Naylor, this description of America is given, "The more Americans fill their lives with things, the more they tell psychiatrists, pastors, friends and family members that they feel 'empty' inside” (pg 74).

American culture has been grown and cultivated by business leaders, marketers, etc to fill all voids, negative, and positive feelings with material things. When you’re feeling sad get that tub of ice cream out, when your happy go out for ice cream, when you’re feeling "empty" fill it with cars. We have been programmed to cope with things by buying more, and this is exactly what corporations want because it means more sales for them. But at what expense does this come? I contend that the expense is our soul. Our soul is weakened by the fact that we try to hide our emotions through material possessions that really cannot satisfy us. Instead of spending time with family and friends, building wholesome relationships, we go buy the latest commodity. Throughout all of "Affluenza" but especially pages 63-71, the authors elaborate on how corporate consumption leads to a dividing effect not only of money in the neighborhoods but also of the occupants of the community. This has caused all Americans not to be citizens that care about their fellow American, but consumers who are in constant competition with all other consumers. And this is where we lose our soul, our "emotional part of human nature," and the bible is quoted on page 74, "What profit would it bring a person,… (Matthew 16:26), were that person to gain the whole world, but lose his soul."

This is exactly what has occurred in present day America. The cut throat nature of Capitalism and modern consumption has led to a nation of consumers who distrust the person next to them. Our emotional part of life is now attributed to a material thing, a certain feeling causes us to craze a certain food, or go out and buy something to "feel better." America has lost a sense of community and togetherness that it possessed less than 100 years ago. Is it possible to get it back? I don’t know if this is possible unless people stopped trying to gain as much as possible no matter the consequence of others, and relive their obligations as a citizen to their fellow citizens. What other changes would have to be done for the American soul to be revived and reinstated instead of "' a spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, a tumor of the soul'" (pg 74) which it seems to be in now. Many Americans have become like Uncle Sam in the cartoon, feeling empty and lost because of capitalism that focuses on the individual aspect of getting what is yours. This is like a plague that attacks our soul. Is there a way to "save our souls" to get back to a place where the entire point of life is not to gain more but to enjoy life, friends, and family.

Joshua Rengulbai Section 01

CA Blog: Toy Theory

Barbie was one of the important toys for your little girl. She can be whatever you want her to be because of her accessories. To quote the Toy Theory article, “Person, Persona, and personality, Barbie is marketed not simply as a doll, a toy, but as “a role model for girls” (DuCille 259). There is only one problem with Barbie… she’s an adult and could be that she’s making girls feel less pretty. Barbie has everything a successful person would have like a sports car, a boyfriend and
clothes that probably exist in specific time periods. A toy like Barbie has many forms of advertising bestowed upon her over the years. There are just so many to count.
Barbie is an icon all by herself; she has been everything that a girl would never of becoming. From astronaut to a doctor and all before any of us were born. Almost every girl in America had a Barbie doll or two in their lifetime. It wasn’t enough; demand for a black or Asian Barbie doll were in effect. To some people, the black Barbies looked horrible, but they still kept the idea of ethnic and racial dolls to the future.
DuCille had found another more shocking detail about Barbie; Barbie’s physical appearance and all her accessories could make any girl have an eating disorder or a shopping addiction. One last detail DuCille shows us that some of the clothes could be of a sexual nature. DuCille stated that, “Probing deeper, a Freudian interpretation might even uncover both repressed sexual desire and a kind of Paris envy” (DuCille 261). The truth is that Barbie has been around for decades and most of the time she (Barbie) has shown girls that they do anything they want. So the real theory of the Toy Theory is that “Toys are not just fun; they help mold us for the future and beyond”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z--ntETyNYo&feature=player_detailpage
(You are going to need to highlight it and put it on the top.)
Andrew Rizzo section 80

CA Blog: The Sexual Sell

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

Youth Culture for Sale?

Media Awareness Network posted special marketing and advertising issues on tweens and teens,http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_teens_marketing.cfm Why are they so important and who are they? Tweens and teens are a group who are between childhood and adulthood. They are becoming the fastest rising consumers in America. With this knowledge, corporations are seizing the opportunity to increase their profit margin by targeting advertisements to these age groups, but to what cost to the tweens and teens. Are the marketing strategies used harmful or helpful to their development?
Fashion had become the embodiment of people’s social origins, their perception of where they fit into the middle class, and an expression of who they want to become. (Blaszezyk, pg. 230) It is unfortunate that youths’ self esteem are shaped by the mass media. The article states “the underlying marketing message is that there is a link between physical beauty and sex appeal – and popularity, success, and happiness. Media is creating massive insecurities in youths because they do not measure up to the “exploitive media images”.
When I served as a youth counselor, each week the youths would be dressed in “name brand labels”. Each clique would be dressed alike. Youths are finding their identity, not in themselves, but in each other, - collective identity. In the summer months, girls wore shorts that practically showed their underwear. Tops were cropped so low, part of their breasts could be seen. Clothes were tight fitting that out lined their bodies. It is clear media is influencing the dress code of these youths.
It is understandable from the company’s point of view, targeting to tweens and teens is a profitable strategy, but shouldn’t there be a greater responsibility of corporation besides money. Manipulating and shaping young minds to see their bodies as only sex objects to gain profit is wrong. Where is social responsibility from American corporations? Mass media will be producing insecure, dependent youths who will be the next generation of “leaders”. America will be a sad place because of greed.
Jennifer Chen
Section 01

CA Blog: We Are What We Own?

The general theme of this weeks reading is, gender. Gender and its impact on consuming. Initially these readings struck me as being out-dated, and in some cases they were. Placing focus on Betty Friedan’s, “The Sexual Sell”, written in 1963 it seemed absurd to insinuate that how genders approached consuming in the 60’s can even compare to how genders approach consuming today. This article put its focus towards the issues of the housewife, their views/approach towards purchasing products, and how the evolution of women’s independency can impact sales. At first I started this article thinking to myself how insane all of these subjects were, how far women have come and how sad it is that they were once even in this place. The idea that women were defining themselves by the products they chose to use/chose not to use sounded insane and I had a hard time relating. However, once I stopped and placed focus on my own shopping habits the similarities are almost a bit frightening. For example, while trying to understand a woman’s thought process for buying frozen foods the article states the woman as thinking to herself, ‘‘by using frozen foods I’m freeing myself to accomplish other important tasks as a modern mother and wife’. Yes, initially to me this sentenced seem silly, initially I thought this woman is in denial, she just doesn’t feel like cooking. Then I had a flashback to my most recent shopping trip where I purchased a piece of luggage. Now, this purchase might not have seemed odd at first except, I’m not going anywhere. Additionally to me not going anywhere anytime soon, I’m not even thinking about planning a trip anytime soon. Nevertheless, when I was standing in the store, contemplating my purchase, these were the thoughts that crossed my mind, ‘I need to travel more, buying this will motivate me to travel more, its carry-on luggage and I hear a lot of airlines charge to check bags, OH! And look it’s on sale.’ Ten minutes later I was standing at the register happily paying $50.00 for my newest purchase.
Ultimately the message these articles convey is how women justify their purchasing and how through these justification they are attempting to define themselves. While searching through Youtube attempting to find something I found relatable to this topic I stumbled upon, The Denialers, specifically Penny Denialer, the compulsive shopper. At the start, this just seemed funny. Yet when I really thought about what Penny was saying and looked at her approach towards her purchases I really started to connect the dots between this article and this Youtube video. Notice how Penny constantly says, ‘It’s just so me’ or ‘It’s just so Penny.’ Penny was defining herself through these items. At one point she even pointed out a purchase she had made for a trip that was still not even planned. It seems as though a theme is being connected through defining who we are as women and what we own. We even make purchases with the hopes that owning these products will somehow force us into the women we want to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZMc0MuF5fc&feature=related

-Kara Kiensicki (Section 01)

Video- Jen LaPlaca

Video wasn't uploading.. here is the URL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFZz6ICzpjI

The "She-conomy"- How women still are the marketers top target

The Number One target for Marketers - Women
By Thomas Sferlazzo- Section 80

In Betty Friedan's "The Sexual Sell," she states, "properly manipulated ('if you are not afraid of that word,' he said) American Housewives can be given the sense of identity, purpose, creativity, the self-realization, even the sexual joy they lack-by the buying of things. I suddenly realized the significance of the boast that women wield seventy-five percent of the purchasing power in America." This excerpt came from her book written in 1963. What is astonishing, is that this number has increased even more as we entered the 21st century. On a website geared towards helping marketers appeal to women better in our current societies form, women now hold more then 85% of the purchasing power in America. Half of the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP), comes from just American women. Think about that, that means individual women hold half the market on their own (over $5 trillion), the other half consists of the government, men, small, and large companies. Other websites state this number is even higher, some feel they contribute over $7 trillion. That is larger then the entire Japanese economy, the fact coming from startupnation.com.
What I found interesting was how Friedan, went to great lengths to express how important it was for marketing to appeal to the multiple forms of the housewife and keep her content. It was in their best interest they felt to keep her in the home so she could spend money and provide life's amenities for her family during the day. Many different companies would go to great lengths to make the housewife of the fifties feel important. Friedan states, "Help her to 'justify her menial task by building up her role as the protector of her family-the killer of millions of microbes and germs,' this report advised. "emphasize her kingpin role in the family...help her be an expert rather than a menial worker... make housework a matter of knowledge and skill, rather than a matter of brawn and dull unremitting effort." Indeed, they really tried to keep women in a state were they would be complacent in the home and replace their feelings of mediocrity with a sense of fulfillment.
What is perplexing was the fact that during WWII women had the prominent role in the workplace while men were off at war. They provided for their families and worked all the jobs their husbands did and entered the workforce six million strong. Questions I pose to everyone why such a shift into the fifties, with women staying in the house, feeling desperate (No pun intended to the crappy show) and needing a sense of accomplishment, when many of their mothers had become skilled laborers that could rest their laurels on the objects they built? Obviously, the fifties were still a time when the man demanded to be the sole bread winner and the job market for women was still small but after putting in such time to hold down the fort while men fought; how were things able to revert so easily without change transpiring until decades later?
Another item to bring up is, how ironic it is that these marketing agencies an advertiser departments for companies only saw half the picture about women and purchasing power. They felt to remain successful they had to devote their power in appealing to women and keeping them in the home to buy things during the day. In today's society most families need two incomes to survive. That means both the husband and wife have jobs and have to share household duties (in a perfect world), and yet women still retain most of the purchasing power in America. Even more then before due to current statistics as shown. My question and topic of discussion here is, why were advertising agencies for all their inquiry into how a woman thinks, and their thoughts on holding onto social barriers (keeping women in the house), did they not foresee that a transition for women to acquire a career would have possibly even bolstered sales to even higher levels in the fifties and sixties? Think about it? Families would have had more money to spend on items that made life more economical and efficient.
Friedan states how department stores of the past would try to show women how spend new found money, one report went like this, "We symbolize our social position by the objects with which we surround ourselves. A woman whose husband was making $6,000 a few years ago and is making $10,000 now needs to learn a whole new set of symbols. Department stores are her best teachers of this subject."
It is an interesting topic to talk about, in regards to consumption it was easier for companies to pitch their advertisements to women whose lives were possibly sheltered, influencing them to buy things that felt they needed to remain important not only to themselves but to their families. A sense of importance can go a long way in being motivational, obviously companies knew that by twisting this motivation into buying power. "Somehow, somewhere, someone must have figured must have figured out that women will buy more things if they are kept in the underused, nameless-yearning, energy-to-get-rid-of state of being housewives." This may be true but then how can this explain the fact that women in our current society account for even more purchasing power then before, with most of them having a job of some sort or another?

affluenza- by Jen LaPlaca

Affluenza

According to the text by John De Graff affluenza is “a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more” (p.2). Our society has developed an insatiable appetite to want more and more. The worst of this group is the children and teens of today. Advertisers are focusing their attention on to children because they are so easily influenced and know how to get what they want from their parents. It’s like Madonna said “I’m a material girl, living in a material world” (p.54). It’s not really the children’s fault because they are what they see and what they have been taught. Now-a-days you don’t even have to leave your couch to go shopping. With a couple clicks of your mouse you can feel that amazing feeling of owning something and being better then your neighbors. Well that is until that feeling leaves and you need to do it again and again to get that shopping high. Some people even travel across numerous states to bigger and better shopping malls. “Listen to that voice inside your head: shop, shop, shop” (p. 17). Shopping is seen as therapy to many. Retail therapy is the new way to feel better about your self until your credit limit is reached. Then next thing you know thousands of Americans are in drowning in credit card debt. Everyone is trying to “keep up with the Joneses” that no one realizes how much they are really hurting themselves. The most amazing thing to me is how far some people will really go with it. “According to the Guinness Book of World Records, one American now has a whopping 1,497 credit cards, a dubious honor” (p. 19). What does a person do with that many credit cards? How many years worth of debt is that person in now? Our goals and dreams seem to be distorted. When children are asked what they want when they are older you hear them say things like I want to be rich, to have lots of cars, but fewer and fewer times do you hear about them wanting to help people. The problem today is that we no longer know how to be happy or to enjoy the simple things. Everything is about work and money. “Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work, driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job that you need so you can pay for clothes, car and the house that you leave empty all day in order to live in it” (p.36). So what are we really living for? Are we too obsessed with more, bigger, and better to realize how much happier we would be with out worrying if your up on the latest fashion.

Shop Til You Drop

The holiday shopping season is once again upon us, and the black Friday rush is soon coming. Even with the economy in the tank people still find the time and money to go out of their minds during the holiday season. In “Affluenza,” by De Graff, Wann, and Naylor, said that the National Retail Foundation estimated that American’s spend about $200 billion on holiday gifts, which averages out to about $850 per costumer (p. 13). They continued on with the statement, “We now spend nearly two-thirds of our $11 trillion economy on consumer goods.” When you break it down this means we spend more money on things we don’t need than we spend on education. That might be the most depressing thing I have ever heard. They discuss how we have a shopping fever and cannot get enough of a mall, and people will go across state just to visit a new mall (p. 14).

After reviewing the information in “Affluenza” it occurred to me to look up holiday shopping trends and I found some interesting information. The famous eBay payment system called PayPal may now be an even more integral part of a consumer’s life. New for this year stores are integrating the PayPal system which will make paying for goods accessible from any device and extended payment flexibility. It will give shoppers the ability to check for store inventory, receive in-store offers, and real time location based advertising. This seems to be a little over the top, and people should be more money conscious rather than just swiping away with more and newer methods of payment.

Our consumer society is dead set on coming up with a new and inventive way for everything. It can range from advertising, to where you shop, why you shop, and how you shop. In times like this we ask the question, is it really necessary to have another way of falling behind on bills and spending money on items that we truly do not need? The consumer society is attempting to go even more digital than it already is. Eventually everything will be done online, and the problem with that is consumers won’t go to the stores. All this means is more people out of work in a society that doesn’t care about your personal interests, rather what can you consume regardless if it is needed or not, and most of the time it isn’t.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/19/in-time-for-the-holiday-shopping-season-paypals-in-store-integration-will-debut-at-a-national-retailer-in-q4/

Austin Payne Cultures of Consumption(Section 80)

The HDTV as the Symbolism of the American Dream

In the 21^st century, we have taken for granted of the fact that modern technology is constantly evolving right before our eyes. The evolution of technology is constantly changing because consumers are fueling this technological engine. As we buy the things we want the most, companies have to generate various types of products that satisfy our needs and wants. That’s why we see new generations of many cell phones. Take for example; the iPhone 4s is the fifth generation of the original iconic iPhone or the creation of the HDTV which replaced the bulky and heavy standard T.V. It is a company’s obligation to update their products, find the newest technology and incorporate them into their products. The main factor for doing this is to fight off various competitions from other companies and draw in potential new consumers to their product.

As we saw in Blaszcyk’s American Consumer Society, in 2005 the home entertainment experience had changed significantly compared to the experiences in the 1950’s. The standard family “gathered around a large wooden cabinet with a glowing black and white picture tube” and “viewed one of three programs being broadcasted by the tree national networks” (263). However in the 21^st century, Blaszcyk writes “even if an upper-middle class family did gather after a meal, they weren’t looking at a piece of furniture. There gaze was fixed on the HDTV” (263). The HDTV signified a power of wealth in the early 2000’s. These slim, cordless, TV’s were being sold for more than $1500, so it was a hefty price to pay. But as prices decreased as a result of popular demand for them, a wide range of consumers were able to afford this once expensive, luxurious T.V.

For consumers in the 21^st century, the HDTV symbolized the American Dream according to Blaszcyk. Americans wanted to have a piece of technology’s brilliant video and three dimensional sounds. Despite that HDTV's are common household appliances these days, our American Dream “is under assault” says President Bill Clinton in a recent interview. The past three years we’ve seen our economy deteriorate month by month due to the fact that economists say we are heading towards another recession. National statistics show that for the past three years the poverty rate in the United States has risen; a record 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. Along with the increase in poverty, “the average median income has fallen to 1996 levels and income inequality is at its highest level since the Roaring Twenties” (Task). The loss of jobs has been a critical issue in politics, and for the Obama administration it has been tough to generate jobs. Clinton says an “enormous number of jobs can be created by renewed commitments to energy efficiency.” The government has said for the past year or two, creating jobs was one of its main priorities in order to jump start the economy. But we have yet to see progress. What does it have to take to jump start the economy? Is the “American Dream” that Americans have always strived for, in the process of becoming non existent due to the economic downturn?

Miles Kong Section 01

CA Blog: Development in how we listen to music

In our society today, whether we are producing it or buying it the American consumer wants to make and listen to music. Music today can be found everywhere, most of that music as we all know is downloaded online and on to our ipods, iphones, etc. Where did buying music and listening to music start off? In the readings by Regina Lee Blaszczyk she elaborates on the development on how we listen to music. In the readings she dates us back to when the transistor radio was the best and easiest way to listen to music anywhere. “Transistor radios appealed to particularly to teenagers who wanted to take their favorite rock and roll music everywhere” (Blaszczyk 240). Now, today teenagers have never even heard of them, which dated into the 1950’s.This is fine because of the technology and the change in how we listen to music. Then in the mid 70’s came the cassettes, which was around for a long time because im in my early 20’s and I remember buying Nirvana cassette tapes. Then we all know the cds and the boom of technology that hit us all at once. One minute the boom box in the 1980s was the way to rock to the music, and then we jump right to the ipods, which is how we listen to music in 2011. Before the invention of the ipods we had to go to the store buy the cd and so on. Now most of us don’t even pay for are music, which isn’t our fault its the modern technology era we are in. With all the years that have passed with the development of music, have we come to the end? Im saying is the invention of itunes and downloading music to are ipods the last of it? I went to having a potable cassette player, to portable CD player, now my ipod. Is there going to be something after the ipod? I don’t see it happening, because how much more can happen with the development of music and how we listen to it?

Stephen Streicher Section 80

CA Blog: The Post Crisis Economy

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_gerzema_the_post_crisis_consumer.html

John Gerzema’s lecture discusses a positive future for the U.S. economy even in this time of crisis. Simply put, when the economy goes down the tubes, consumers adapt their needs from a culture of buying everything they can get, to responsibly consuming what they need. Through several slides and statistics, Gerzema predicts first that our culture has changed its value system to a “less is more” outlook. Secondly, consumers are judging the businesses they buy from more strictly and expect them to hold up an empathetic value system similar to their own. Thirdly, American consumers are being intelligent about living off of products that are cost efficient, last longer, and have multiple uses. Finally, Gerzema believes Americans are connecting to their communities and social networks more like buying organic meat in bulk with your neighbors for instance.

For generations since the end of WWII and the suburbanization of America, the middle class has lived a life of spending disposable income that in turn, created a culture where having more makes you better. One could argue that this mindset of the WWII generation was passed on to the high consumer’s of today. Unfortunately, the economy has been slowly declining since then, and with the advent of credit, consumers have somewhat gone off the rails with their spending habits. If Gerzema is correct in his assessments of how our culture is changing, than the behaviors that have been building and building into what Blaszcyzyk illustrates in his book are at least slowly going in to hibernation and making way for the reformed consumer. What I fear may keep this new population of consumers from setting a national standard and ideal for everyone is our celebrity culture. We generally look to celebrities for our fashion and lifestyle choices. The famous have the money to dress extravagantly, while the average Joe does not, but we all spend the money to look like them anyway. As Blaszcyzyk explores eighties fashion, she points out that a popular actor, “Sonny Crockett, wore silk t-shirts under Armani sports jackets… this look set a new standard for dressing down” and as hip hop music took off, “When Run-DMC rapped about Adidas sneakers in 1986, they scored a $1 million endorsement contract from the manufacturer” (227). The second quote leads me to believe that Adidas made a huge jump in sales just because the Run-DMC rapped about them. Sonny Crockett’s style created the idea that even in casual settings, you have to spend money and look good. The Yuppie culture still has a foothold in our culture today even though few people now make “too much money and spend it conspicuously”. Brands like Polo and Tommy Hilfiger are just as popular as they were in the eighties. So, do we have the discipline in ourselves to transform into a culture that focuses less on how much we buy, but what and why we buy?

Matthew Valenzuela section 01

From "Hardware" to "Software"

One of the most interesting concepts found in Blaszczyk’s American Consumer Society has to be the idea of consumers placing their values on “software” rather than “hardware”. Blaszczyk states that, “The potential quality of the entertainment is what motivates someone to buy one set of boxes instead of another” (274). Blaszczyk means to show that the American consumer no longer places value on an object itself, but on what the object can do for them, and what experiences it can expose them to. No better object can demonstrate this idea than the recently announced iPhone 4S. As everyone knows, the iPhone, like other smartphones, is not just a phone, but a multimedia device that fits in the palm of your hands. This new iPhone differs from the rest however in that it has a new feature called Siri. Siri is basically a “personal assistant”, as this video demonstrates, that is capable of deciphering voice commands and supplying you with knowledge based off of these commands. As the video shows, Siri can supply you with traffic information, converting measurements, weather information, appointments, and even reads your text messages to you, which you can reply to simply by speaking your reply. With this product, Apple is not simply selling an object, it is selling an experience. Siri allows the user to experience something completely new, something that is only seen in the movies, and that is what is most interesting. The phone is simply a placeholder for the actual technology. As can be seen from the video, the users aren’t even holding or touching the phone most of the time. Instead, the phone sits idly by while the user commands it to give out information, text family members and friends, and arrange meetings. This sort of experience is what Apple is selling, which is also evident seeing as how the phone has the same design as the previous version. This goes to show that the product is not what is being sold, but rather the new experiences the new phone can expose you to. With these types of innovations being presented, who can imagine what type of technology will be available to us in ten or even five years? Will a material object even be needed for us to connect to the internet or speak to our friends and family across the country? As Blaszczyk states, “In this post-Boomer world, ‘things’ merely facilitate the creation of ‘experiences’” (274). I believe that with inventions such as Siri, it is only a matter of time before physical objects won’t even be needed in order to experience things such as finding out what the weather will be tomorrow, connecting with others over the internet, or making a phone call to your parents. Innovators will continue to push the boundaries of technology and with a consumer society such as ours, where these experiences are becoming more valued than the material product itself, these new innovations are not that far away. Siri is a step forward in technological advances and helps demonstrate the “software” rather than “hardware” argument and also allows us to imagine what will be the next major change. Where will we place our values on next?

Javier Morillo Sect. 01

An Increased Value of the Home to an Increase Economy

The GI generation invested more money in their home life than any generation before them, leading to an increased number of children and to the postwar "baby boom". With this increased value in the home life there was then a rise in many industries which had never been prominent in the past. These industries all surrounded the family and day to day life in suburban America, including the wedding, appliance, automobile, and textiles industries. The search for the American dream lead to this fast rise in industry which then ultimately lead to more jobs and a faster growing economy for post war America.

"The Boomers would demand 'clothing, furniture, appliances, automobile, and everything else that goes to make up the high standard of American living.'" (Blaszczyk 185). These demands created work for those who needed it and good for those consumers demanding them. The new idea of a "traditional" wedding alone led the wedding industry to succeed greatly in many sreas with an increase in jewelry and dress sales, and the quality of those items bought. The rental of venues and services such as catering and florists also aided in the creation of much revenue for these businesses and lead to the blossoming of the wedding industry.

Once couples were married they then had to purchase a home with appliances and furniture to furnish it. In order to achieve the perfect vision of the American dream these furnishings had to be top of the line and the most in style available. The increase in demand of populuxe goods and furnishing for the home were able to provide homeowners with a sense of "comfot and style, industrial might and national achievement." (Blaszczyk 184). This was a national achievement on both ends of the spectrum providing consumers with goods and aiding the economy as well. As well as the high demands for goods for the home, the American dream was also marked with the type of car a person owned, making the automobile industry thrive during this period as well. Over all the post war economy flourished as a reasult of the high number of consumers demanding goods at once, would another baby boom be a possible solution to the economic crisis America is faced with today or would it work in opposition to our needs and create a larger problem for the nation?

By Jourdan Stone section 01

CA Blog: Populuxe, Formica Dining Sets, Carports, and Grease Lightning

Thomas Hine coined the phrase “populuxe” to describe the “popular luxury” material culture of the 1950s and 1960s. According to Hine, populuxe is “an expression of the spirit of the time and the rationale for many of the products that were produced. And, finally, Populuxe contains a thoroughly unnecessary ‘e,’ to give it class.” Populuxe items for the home included Formica dining sets. Blaszczyk mentions the kitchen as the family’s gathering spot (p203), and this room required the strength and beauty of Formica.

This first image comes from the Formica website and shows the “perfect kitchen.” The cute young girl, who smiles as she runs her fingers on the smooth Formica counter top, parallels her father, who runs his hand along the surface of the sliding glass door. Formica was sleek and shiny as glass, but strong and stylish as well, making it perfect for the new, blue-collar middle-class families whose kitchen is the central focus of the home.

This kitchen set was a result of a Google image search, and I include it because I remember a dining set that belonged to an old neighbor; it was almost identical to this, except her colors were gold and yellow, as opposed to the greys and browns seen here. These tables were ideal space savers, because not only did they have hidden leaves that lengthened the table when needed, but also drawers that held silverware and table linens. The chairs look like naugahyde, another populuxe material.

The contrast between the two images couldn’t be more severe. Everyone wanted glamorous kitchens with Formica countertops with stovetops on multi-level islands, but middle-class reality was the space-saving Formica table that could hide within itself when not in use. Comfort, style, and strength (Formica was definitely strong! My neighbor’s table was virtually indestructible.) were available, but the new, blue-collar middle-class of the post-war era also made it practical.

The carport represented the male space in the home, and became the one spot where he expressed his identity (Blaszczyk 202). The new motto of "more is better" (Blaszczyk 205) allowed blue-collar men to show their success with brightly painted cars, flashy interiors, and radios.

Look at the first image again, but focus on the image of the young girl's father. Imagine him wearing his casual weekend clothes instead of the suit, tie, and hat he wears during the work week, and imagine that he is carrying car keys instead of a neatly folded  newspaper. Sitting in his brand new carport might be this:

Well, maybe not exactly that, since this picture's from the movie, "Grease," but when Blaszczyk related pink Buicks and tail fins to populuxe (p184), I immediately thought of the greasers (and their cars) in this movie. But the T-Birds come from working-class roots, and their cars were their status symbols, and Greased Lightning details everything a blue-collar worker might add to his car.

Choice Matters

In this week's readings ("Encountering Mass Culture at the Grassroots: The Experience of Chicago Workers in the 1920s" by Lizabeth Cohen, we learned that the direction that consumption takes a society is ultimately the consumer's choice. The document discusses how plans for mass consumption (i.e the radio, department stores/markets, standardized packaging, phonographs, movie theatres, etc.) were meant to assimilate the immigrant culture into American life and create one uniform culture. Therefore, by all groups of Americans subscribing to standardized mass consumption, all people would become one, homogenous, Americanized identity. However, we learn via the document that this did not happen. In fact, immigrant groups used mass consumption to commit further to their respective cultures and maintain cultural independence. For example, instead of mass production assimilating Italians into a "standard culture," Italians rejected department stores in favor of their local neighborhood grocer, played Italian records, and screened Italian films all within their own neighborhood. Instead of the radio sweeping them into mass culture, they began building their own radios and tinkering with DX (distance) capabilities to listen to their desired stations. "Communal radio listening mediated between local and mass culture much like the neighborhood store or theatre." (Cohen) The point is, the people had power over consumption. They took what was intended to control them and made it their own, backfiring on and disrupting the cause of those who sought to strip them of their independence and identity in the name of profit and control.

The same war continues to be waged today and we are losing. As consumers, we have the power to control how we view products and what we do with them. People and ideas are meant to control the course of civilization, not products of mass consumption that as we learned in class, are part of a deliberate system that is engineered to manipulate us and debase our existence as independent beings. Little by little, this system eats away at humanity itself. As we learned from Baudrillard, mass consumption is a social force and a social system. In class, one of the positions on needs that we learned is that needs are a result of social conditioning. The satisfaction of needs is related to adherence to certain values. Well, what happens when the values that we are supposed to adhere to are wrong? We have the choice of whether we decide to belong to the set of people that adhere to these values. Look at the state of the world we live in - we should be adhering to our own values and not the industry's. I hope that the example used in the Cohen document shows that our lives should not be dictated by the influence of mass consumer culture. I'm not saying that we should stop selling and buying products, but what I am saying is that we should return to a practical sense of how we view products and ultimately break free from the egregious cycle and dangerous influence that the advertising (and financial....)industry holds over American society. I also hope that anyone who has been supporting or following #OccupyWallStreet sees that the people still have the ability to change the course of society in the face of the powers that be.

- Benjamin Doda, section 80

CA Blog: Style Over Practicality

Americans have always been persistent consumers. It is such a huge part of their lives that present day Americans can just be characterized by how they make choices in what they buy. Americans looks far beyond the necessities but more of the aesthetics and pleasure of what their purchases bring. American consumers are encountered with a diverse selection of goods and designs for which they buy. Instead of just a plain appliance, they look for the “glistening” one (Blaszczyk, 204). They take their time choosing what colors match their furniture or what style gives a sense of individuality. In the present day America, they care for aesthetics.

People in modern day America, to an extent, care more of the look and feel of an object as opposed to the actual functions it brings. Realistically speaking, the initiative to get consumers drawn into the good is what catches their eyes, which is the design of the product. This became so evident that car designers became to get “free reign…(to create) fantasies of luxury and power” of the cars that they designed (Blaszczyk, 206). Producers understand the value of excellent design in products. That is the first thing that consumers notice, regardless of what the actual product is. If it’s eye catching, it draws the consumer in.

Apple products have always been known for their sleek and fashionable design. It looks well with anything and comes with a variety of accessories to make it even more pronounced in its aesthetical quality. Although there are a myriad number of brands that produce electronics for mp3, laptops, and tablets, most Americans would prefer to have the Apple brand. Even if the Apple brand does have better quality in performance of their products, the look and feel of the iPod, iTouch, iPad, etc. is the main incentive that drives consumers to buy them and greatly overshadows the other reasons.

This trend is evident in the sales of Apple products over the last decade. Every year, Apple would alter the design of Apple products to make it more fashionable with maybe a few improvements in functionality, release it, and see exploding sales. This practice has mostly been successful. Furthermore, in the near future, Apple plans to release a white colored iTouch (black being the other standard choice) along with a new design of iPod nanos, giving it a more watch-like feel. Apple will also launch six new watch faces for the player, allowing consumers to accessorize it as they please. Even if Apple gives the iTouch and nanos little tweaks of functionality improvements, it is clear that their main goal is to make it more fashionable and likeable in the physical sense.

Does it seem that modern day American consumerism is more about the fashion sense than the actual practicality of the item being bought?

Extra Link: Future fashionable iPod nanos

Sueyon Kim 01

Consumers and Cars

America’s Baby Boomers are those individuals who were born between 1946 and 1964. Seventy eight million babies were born in the Unites States alone during this time period. This population of consumers has had a huge impact on the way goods are marketed in America. The Baby Boom created huge demand for housing, which helped create the many new suburban communities that sprung up after 1945. Regina Lee Blaszczyk addresses what she calls the Boom America period, 1945-2005, by explaining that the Boomers were a new type of consumer altogether. She elaborates that they are affluent, born of shared generational experiences of postwar prosperity, Reagnomics and the dawn of the electronic age. However, it is their mass numbers that played an integral role in confounding marketers. This was the first time that marketers had to deal with a variable other than gender, income, geography, race and social time. The Boomers redefined middle class and therefore redefined the consumer culture (Blaszczyk 180-181).
In the 1950s, America was fascinated with the accoutrements of better living such as single-family homes, kitchen appliances and shiny new cars. Colorful kitchen appliances were coveted by the women of the time and men indulged in buying cars. This is reflected in the statistics for car purchases. Yearly automobile purchases increased from 70,000 cars in 1945 to 10 million cars in 1973 (Blaszczyk 204-205). H.F. Moorhouse states, “In short, the years and the war were that period of affluence when most Americans became comfortable and well-off compared to their parents or to pre-war standards”. The automobile was the symbol of this change and came to a new peak as a commodity and as a cultural symbol (282). The link below shows a car commercial from 1956 which appeals to the standard of better living of the time period.



Thomas Walsh 01

Consumers and Cars (continued)

In the United States the automobile production market is dominated by what is known as the Big Three; General Motors, Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company. The global financial downturn resulted in the automobile industry crisis of 2009-2010. Chrysler and General Motors received billion dollar government bailouts to avoid bankruptcy. The Ford Company did not accept a government bailout, choosing instead to secure a line of credit, if necessary. This brings us to 2011, when Ford ran an ad depicting a customer explaining before a press conference why he chose to buy a Ford. The customer indicates that he chose Ford over Chrysler and General Motors because Ford did not take the government bailout and used hard work to get out of the financial bind they were in. That is the American way, the customer claims. The commercial was soon pulled by Ford due to what some claim was pressure from the White House, as they were apparently displeased with the bailout references. Ford is denying that they pulled the ad due to political pressure. My questions to you are “Should Ford have pulled the ad?” and “Should government intrude on or suppress the advertisements of a private company?”


Thomas Walsh 01