With technology we have reached the point where strides are being made in technology research and electronic devices are becoming better, faster and more powerful all of the time. I'm not saying that we are on the verge of a technological singularity but I do think this trend of constantly making everything better plays a big reason as to why advertising costs have increased. People have less money but we have competing markets, not just in technology but in all areas, food, clothing, entertainment etc, it could be more than anything that the aim of advertising is no longer to expand the brand but to make the brand the only brand that matters.
In many ways this aggressive advertising spend isn't just a result of new advertising platforms such as the internet but a result of trying to dominate chosen markets. I believe this is why big budget advertising exists, it's about becoming the chosen brand and gaining a large amount of power over other business as you attempt to gain a monopoly over the market.
On paper this isn't how things have gone down, the recession did lead to the demise of several large businesses but this was not a case of lost customers, for many corporations the issues were internal. Despite the bad economic climate people were still ready and willing to spend (even if they couldn't afford it). In a recession affected consumer society it is possible to convince consumers to spend of the basis that their purchases could contribute to the recovery in the economy even though the people were never to blame for the economic downfall in the first place.
What I find interesting here is the different mentalities between people in nations such as the United Kingdom and people in a nation such as Poland (McStay, 345). In the former the sales of luxury items are seen as a key component in a healthy economy and it is therefore necessary that people continue to buy goods in order to keep a healthy economic growth, in other words, not spending money is seen as a negative. In nations such as Poland however luxuries are just that. When you put it in perspective maybe they are in the right? Don't spend money on luxury unless you have to. But then again isn't availability of luxury items for the mass population considered part of what makes a nation a first world nation? Is it not the capitalist culture that makes people continuously buy ever improving tech?
Online advertising has gained a larger presence over the last 5 years but I do not think internet advertising has reached its full potential yet, if anything online advertising such as videos and banners are treated as annoyances more than anything (hence why people install software such as Adblock). Viral marketing is much more successful in making use of the Internets potential as an advertising platform but even then the more cynical of us are likely to see past the participatory reward aspect of viral marketing and class it as yet another attempt by the big corporations to extort the talents of people for free.
Either way I think that we definitely live in a consumer culture that encourages aspiration, not the "if I work hard I'll fulfill my dreams" kind of aspiration but the "if I do good at work I'll be able to buy a new television" aspiration. The first can be thought of as a positive aspiration because the person is aspiring to be something better while the latter sees the person aspire to have better things. The problem with the second type of aspiration is that it encourages the use of skinner box (operant conditioning) techniques in the work place. Skinner box techniques make up part of the gamification of modern day work. In the case of the skinner box we have created a consumer society that is designed to keep you "playing" for small rewards, these rewards are designed to keep you coming back for more. Eventually a person will become so inbred to this system of work for rewards that when they come into any large amount of income they will feel entitled to spend it on a bigger award. This is only one example of how the modern consumer society is able to make money from people on a regular basis. Again this doesn't just apply to objects and tech this can also apply to our every day needs. This sknnier box work and reward cycle can apply to our food buying habits, even food is an object of aspiration, you could buy the cheap brand or you can work just a little bit harder and buy the more costly food. In short the entire system is a trap, it's all about having what the next person already has. We don't completely decide what it is we want, instead we are dictated towards our choices though factors such as income and popularity.
Online advertising has gained a larger presence over the last 5 years but I do not think internet advertising has reached its full potential yet, if anything online advertising such as videos and banners are treated as annoyances more than anything (hence why people install software such as Adblock). Viral marketing is much more successful in making use of the Internets potential as an advertising platform but even then the more cynical of us are likely to see past the participatory reward aspect of viral marketing and class it as yet another attempt by the big corporations to extort the talents of people for free.
Either way I think that we definitely live in a consumer culture that encourages aspiration, not the "if I work hard I'll fulfill my dreams" kind of aspiration but the "if I do good at work I'll be able to buy a new television" aspiration. The first can be thought of as a positive aspiration because the person is aspiring to be something better while the latter sees the person aspire to have better things. The problem with the second type of aspiration is that it encourages the use of skinner box (operant conditioning) techniques in the work place. Skinner box techniques make up part of the gamification of modern day work. In the case of the skinner box we have created a consumer society that is designed to keep you "playing" for small rewards, these rewards are designed to keep you coming back for more. Eventually a person will become so inbred to this system of work for rewards that when they come into any large amount of income they will feel entitled to spend it on a bigger award. This is only one example of how the modern consumer society is able to make money from people on a regular basis. Again this doesn't just apply to objects and tech this can also apply to our every day needs. This sknnier box work and reward cycle can apply to our food buying habits, even food is an object of aspiration, you could buy the cheap brand or you can work just a little bit harder and buy the more costly food. In short the entire system is a trap, it's all about having what the next person already has. We don't completely decide what it is we want, instead we are dictated towards our choices though factors such as income and popularity.
The box about the false intimacy seen in advertising (McStay, 344) is something that has often played on my mind int he past. How is it that we, the consumers, have in many ways come to feel like we have an almost friend-like relationship with the corporations, in some cases it even begins to feel like we owe them. The fake friend intimacy is one of the most effective forms of advertising because they make consumers feel like they matter. With the Dove real women adverts one of the messages being sent to viewers was that this advertisement would have never been possible without the support of the common people who buy dove soaps. One recent example that comes to mind is the Playstation 4 "For The Players Since 1995" advertisement. This advert worked on nostalgia and one of the main messages it was sending out to the viewer was that these nostalgic moments and good memories could have never existed without the people who bought and played Playstation systems. It's almost like the advertisement is saying "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". These type of advertisements can play with just how fickle people actually are, 5 years ago the goodwill was not with the Playstation brand but with the competing Xbox brand. The role reversal has been caused by one brand going in a direction that has inadvertently caused the business/consumer relationship to be soured while the other has made movements to strengthen the business/consumer relationship.
I suppose that is the way competing markets function, when you have two factions competing against each other it is inevitable that each will take turns gaining the other hand from each other as people continue to change their minds over what is and isn't the popular choice.
In summary I agree with many of the points made in the reading. I feel that the consumer society has been forced upon us, not as a aggressive force but through the power of suggestion. The more you surround yourself with people who have been swayed by the consumer society the more likely you are yourself to conform to the consumer model of thinking.
References:
McStay, A. (2009) “Consumer Society and Advertising,” in Long, P.; Wall, T; Bakir, V. & McStay, A. (2009/2012). Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context. London: Pearson Education.
References:
McStay, A. (2009) “Consumer Society and Advertising,” in Long, P.; Wall, T; Bakir, V. & McStay, A. (2009/2012). Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context. London: Pearson Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment