Chris Jordan's Three-Second Visual Meditation for Shoppers

"Three Second Meditation" is artwork from Chris Jordan that offers a reminder about how our consumer society has run amok. Click here, then click on the artwork to zoom in and see the details of the composition: 9,960 mail order catalogs, equal to the average number of pieces of junk mail that are printed, shipped, delivered, and disposed of in the U.S. every three seconds.

The Psychology of Shopping

I've written in the past about the power of advertising and the psychology of store design and product placement that convinces us to buy things, often things we don't need (scroll down and search for "Advertising" in "Categories" on the sidebar of this blog to read previous posts). The psychology of shopping is endlessly fascinating to me, and I've compiled a few more posts that address aspects of it.

1.  In "Psychology Today," Kit Yarrow, Ph.D, presents five ways that sales make you vulnerable. In her article, "Why Clearance Sales are Psychologically Irresistible," fear of missing out is in first position on her list.

In her research she found that "sale shoppers ultimately spend more money than non-sale shoppers. They often purchase things that aren’t truly satisfying; and because they aren’t satisfied they continue to shop. Additionally, the rush they get from snagging a bargain has an addictive quality - the products they purchase are in some ways secondary." She offers some suggestions about how to counter this vulnerability, including using cash rather than a credit card because cash is "real" and credit isn't.

2.  Here's a rather surprising observation, discussed in a New York Times opinion piece by Oliver Burkeman entitled, "Suffer. Spend. Repeat," about shopping during the holiday season:

"[I]t may strike you that retailers have gone out of their way to make holiday shopping as unpleasant an experience as possible. The odd truth is that they probably have. And there’s a reason for that: evidence suggests that the less comfortable you are during the seasonal shopping spree, the more money you’ll spend."

And once you start spending, chances are you'll continue because, "according to the theory of 'shopping momentum,' as explained by researchers from Stanford, Yale and Duke Universities, we fret far more about whether to buy the first item we purchase during a trip than we do subsequent ones."

3. Martin Lindstrom "has learned a few things about advertising and marketing. He's advised major corporations such as Disney and Proctor & Gamble, and recently wrote a book called Brandwashed, which chronicles the many ways corporations get us to consume their products."

Brandwashing starts very young (Lindstrom says the average American 3-year-old can recognize 100 brands) and it saturates our lives. Example: Those small cardboard boxes in the produce department of Whole Foods that say "Patty's Farm" aren't exactly what they seem to be. The box "[has] actually been designed by a graphic design company in New York City to make us feel this is nostalgia at its peak."

Learn more in an "All Things Considered" NPR interview called, "Products R Us: Are We Brandwashed?" (8 min 26 sec)


Obviously, the solution to functioning in a society that's saturated with marketing ploys is to try to outwit the advertisers by being constantly aware of their efforts and prepared to meet the onslaught that greets us whenever we go shopping. But vigilance can be fatiguing and even the most knowledgeable and sophisticated shopper can be vulnerable to just the right combination of sales techniques.

I find that avoiding "window shopping" and its equivalent, browsing online, help keep my focus on what's needed. But there have been times when that hypnotic "Oh, look! It's sparkly!" moment has taken over my brain and claimed my sanity just long enough to open my wallet and pull out a credit card. Do you have any special tricks your rely on when you're shopping? Please share because we all need as much help as we can get!

(Image credit: Robert Linder on stock.xchng)

More on Marketing Manipulation

Photo Credit: Asif Akbar at stock.xchng

Consumers are easily manipulated. No matter how savvy we think we are, we fall for many of the tricks advertisers and marketers use to sell products to us. We don't believe those "Going Out of Business Sale" signs that are permanent fixtures in some store windows, but we will succumb to just the right color, the right descriptive word, or perhaps the right scent. Here are several articles that may make you rethink just how sophisticated your choices are when you make purchasing decisions.

"Does This Smell Clean to You? - Products Bring Aromatherapy To Household Chores; Don't Say 'Banana'"

"Forget lemon and pine. People are fumigating their homes with exotic essences of ginger and hibiscus while scrubbing floors and bathtubs. That's because packaged-goods makers, in their endless hunt for the new and improved, are ramping up the complexity of product fragrances. Adding an elaborate bouquet that consumers crave to a product line helps build loyalty, marketers say. . . .Mr. Clean has New Zealand Springs, promising 'ferns, forests and glacier-carved waterfalls.' No matter that consumers may not know what a glacier-carved waterfall actually smells like. 'They're fanciful. You want to evoke a feeling or emotion, like when you're out in a meadow,' says Deborah Betz, a senior fragrance development manager at International Flavors & Fragrances, an industry supplier. 'It doesn't have to smell like an actual meadow.'"

Read more here to learn how the colors you see on the fashion runways and foods that are currently popular also affect the scents in cleaning products. It's a safe bet that these same factors influence personal hygiene products and cosmetics, too -- even organic ones.

"7 Reasons Why Diamonds Are a Waste of Your Money"

"Ira Weissman is a diamond industry veteran with a decade of experience at one of the world's largest diamond polishers. He has traveled the world buying and selling diamonds and now dedicates his time to helping consumers make the most of their diamond buying decisions."

The focus of the article is on the diamond engagement ring: Long-standing tradition? No. Great investment. No. Good way to stall when avoiding a marriage commitment? Possibly. Read the list to see if you want to rethink how you feel about diamonds in general.

"Cheap Clothing Costs a Lot More Than You Think"

I've posted in the past about the complex dilemma of cheap products produced under horrific conditions in foreign countries and sometimes in the U.S. (here's one previous post).  Elizabeth Cline is the author of a new book entitled “Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion” (I have not read it yet) in which she explains that the high volume/cheap labor/cheap materials business model has resulted, as most of us already know, in human suffering and negative environmental impact. "Cline states that 'There are very few middle-market brands and retailers and everything has become very cheap or irrationally expensive on the other end.' Leaving little room for quality products that don’t cost a fortune, most of us fall victim to clothing items we know aren’t the best sourced, yet we buy them anyway."

The article promotes www.fashioningchange.com, a website offering free shopping links and information about "stylish, eco-friendly and ethical alternatives to top name brands." My personalized recommendations look good enough for me to investigate further and probably purchase a few items. Read more here.

*********

And one final note: The Thoughtful Consumer blog celebrated its 6th anniversary on August 3rd. Thanks to all of you who read and comment!

Potpourri: Big Homes, Advertising, Recycling

I have a backlog of interesting items on various topics that I'm condensing for this post.

Big homes: I was distressed to learn that, in spite of all the favorable press small homes have been receiving—especially the ultra-small "tiny houses,"—people are opting for larger new homes. From The Wall Street Journal:

"KB Home says the average square footage of houses currently under contract is 2,079, an increase of 13% from last year. And more KB buyers are picking models that exceed 3,500 square feet...The return to bigger houses—which has taken industry watchers by surprise—indicates that the housing downturn paused, but didn't kill, America's love affair with supersize abodes...A major driver behind the bigger-home trend is record-low interest rates, under 4% for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which allow some buyers to move up without necessarily making larger mortgage payments."

Advertising: Soon there will be no escape from advertising. Here's the warning from the LA Times:

"A company called Novo Ad has developed technology that can turn a public bathroom mirror into an electronic display for video advertisements...The mirrors are actually LED screens that have an internal hard disk and "very sophisticated proprietary software," according to a spokesman for the company."

The technology hasn't arrived yet in the U.S., but efforts are being made to find partners and advertisers to get it here as quickly as possible.


Recycling: On a cheerier note, in the Netherlands, recycling has been elevated to a new level of cultural awareness and change. The New York Times reports from Amsterdam about the "Repair Cafe" phenomenon:

"Thirty groups have started Repair Cafes across the Netherlands, where neighbors pool their skills and labor for a few hours a month to mend holey clothing and revivify old coffee makers, broken lamps, vacuum cleaners and toasters, as well as at least one electric organ, a washing machine and an orange juice press...'The Repair Cafe is an effective way to raise awareness that discarded objects are indeed still of value,' Mr. Joop Atsma [the state secretary for infrastructure and the environment] wrote in an e-mail...Marjanne van der Rhee, a Repair Cafe volunteer who hands out data collection forms and keeps the volunteers fortified with coffee, said: 'Different people come in. With some, you think, maybe they come because they’re poor. Others look well-off, but they are aware of environmental concerns. Some seem a little bit crazy.'"

I like the Repair Cafe idea, but I may be a little bit crazy.

Co-opting Cultures for Consumer Goods



A post by Lisa Hix on Fresh Type, "Why the ‘Native’ Fashion Trend Is Pissing Off Real Native Americans," brings up some thought-provoking concerns about co-opting another culture to create art or design for general public consumers. The most recent example of  this was Urban Outfitters which headed into the 2011 holiday season with a "Navajo" line. The result was a lawsuit by the Navajo Nation. The basis of the suit has to do with trademark infringement. From NPR:

"What they did here was they went and sued them on the basis of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which says it's illegal to produce a product that says it's Indian made when it's not Indian made. So the Navajo Nation is saying that the products that the company is producing makes it appear that Navajos had some part in the production of these products and therefore that's against the law."

From the Fresh Type article:

"The problem," says Jessica R. Metcalfe, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa and doctor of Native American studies who teaches at Arizona State University and blogs about Native American fashion designers at Beyond Buckskin, "is that they’re putting it out there as 'This is the native,' or 'This is native-inspired.' So now you have non-native people representing us in mainstream culture. That, of course, gets tiring, because this has been happening since the good old days of the Hollywood Western in the 1930s and '40s, where they hired non-native actors and dressed them up essentially in redface. The issue now is not only who gets to represent Native Americans," Metcalfe says, "but also who gets to profit."

But, as the article continues to explain, this is hardly the first time a culture has been used in products by designers who are not a part of it, for consumers who are also not a part of it.

"For example, the pattern we think of as 'paisley'—now most commonly seen on ties—was once a holy symbol of the Zoroastrians in Persia. And throughout fashion history, designers have been swiping motifs from other cultures—from China and Japan in Victorian times, Egypt in the 1920s, and West Africa and Latin America in the '60s."

I found the story about the long intertwining of the Pendleton company with Native Americans to be fascinating. Also interesting was learning how young Native American fashion designers are using the Pendleton blanket:

"It’s really cool to see how they reinterpret the blanket," Metcalfe says. "For Sho Sho, she’s using very vibrant colors and the bold graphics of the Pendleton blanket and giving it this hip-hop vibe, by making these hoodies for men and women. She's made the wearing blanket something cool for Native Americans to wear again."

Wait a minute. Hip-hop vibe? That's cultural appropriation, too.

Complex issue, isn't it?

Five Aggressive Advertising Techniques

A thought-provoking update to my previous post about facial recognition software:

"5 Sci-Fi Ad Techniques That Are About to Make Life Creepier," a post on Cracked.com, lists some surprising methods, including facial recognition, that will affect -- or already are affecting -- how advertisers reach us:

1. Ads that literally whisper in your ear
2. Billboards that watch you back
3. Digitally editing product placement into old TV reruns
4. Eavesdropping on your phone calls
5. Eavesdropping through your computer

Notice this startling ad for Amnesty International that's mentioned in category #2; technology can be put to work for non-profits, too.

But have we gone too far? Of course, even if we have, there's no turning back now. Do you think these techniques will make you more susceptible to the ads you see or might your awareness make you resentful of the advertisers? Do you have greater concerns about your privacy? Will you alter your shopping behavior or use of technology now that you know what's going on? Is "1984" almost here?

Advertising and Facial Recognition Software

Targeted marketing is nothing new. Advertisers always want the most bang for their buck, so gathering information about consumers has been a crucial part of figuring out an effective strategy to get us to spend on a specific product or type of product. "Loyalty programs" that reward shoppers with points or discounted prices on goods and services are probably the most common way to find out who's buying what. Every time you swipe your card at the grocery or drug store, you're not just getting lower prices on your merchandise, you're handing over valuable information to the companies that track your spending. Assuming you filled out the identifying information on your card application honestly, there's a goldmine there: not just what you buy, but where you live, how old you are, maybe even your income bracket. And that information is offered voluntarily buy consumers. What about information that's gathered without consumer knowledge? And what if that information is based on your facial features that identify your sex and your age range? Or even you as an individual?

Facebook had to calm irate users a few months ago when it introduced facial recognition software that could automatically identify friends when you uploaded photos of them onto the social network. People complained about fears of invasion of privacy -- a frequent issue that Facebook has had to address and a rather odd situation considering most users volunteer a huge amount of personal data that can be harvested by the applications they allow to access their profiles. Surely you've noticed that the ads you see are affected by your posts and links, even if you are resolutely app-free.

But how will facial recognition software be used for advertising in a retail setting? From the recent LA Times article by Shan Li and David Sarno: "Picture this: You stop in front of a digital advertising display at a mall and suddenly an ad pops up touting makeup, followed by one for shoes and then one for butter pecan ice cream. It seems to know you're a woman in your late 20s and, in fact, it does. When you looked at the display, it scanned your facial features and tailored its messages to you."

This is not just conjecture about the future; the application is already at work in some locations and companies like Kraft Foods Inc. and Adidas are exploring its use in kiosks, vending machines, and on digital signs. Even trendy bars in Chicago are using it to keep the male/female customer ratio in balance and in a designated age range.

Naturally, privacy advocates are concerned about misuse of the software, for example if individuals are identified and the information is used by insurance companies or the government (some police and national security agencies already use it with mixed results). "What if the government starts compiling a database of everyone who shows up to protests?" asked Marc Rotenberg, executive director of [the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center]. "There are so many 1st Amendment and human rights concerns. It's a slippery slope."

And yet, most companies just want to use facial recognition to sell us stuff. Will it work? Perhaps. But there's one interesting twist that's come up. In a popular YouTube video, "HP Computers Are Racist," two retail employees test the facial recognition software in their store computer and discover that it recognizes and follows the white employee but not the black one. The black employee jokingly says that this is proof that HP computers are racist. But I happen to know of more than one black person who would observe that this must be the first time that a surveillance technology has been designed that excludes them based on their appearance!

Are you concerned about the use of facial recognition technology that targets ads to you?

Advertising to Children: Geo Girl Make-up

Does an eight-year-old girl need an anti-aging face cream? WalMart thinks so.

Geo Girl is a line of "natural make-up and skin care" in recyclable containers. The target users: girls eight to twelve, also known as "tweens." The products were scheduled to launch in WalMart stores this week but have not yet appeared on the shelves.

Make-up for kids is just a slight modification of a phenomenon started with the 2006 make-up line from Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen. It was successfully marketed for teens although it also proved to have pre-teen appeal. But the twins extraordinaire have grown up and refocused on a fashion empire, and their followers are now all old enough to pop for "real" make-up. Marketers needed to move on, but this time why not include an even larger group of potential customers who already spend about $24 million per year on make-up? Most of this tween money is spent on lip gloss, eye shadow and mascara. According to an ABC News report, mascara use in that age group increased from 10% to 18% in 2009.

The report has much more to say on the subject of young girls and make-up, including concerns about skin damage from inappropriate use of exfoliators on youthful faces and possible psychological damage from pressure to be beautiful and sexy at an age when those demands are premature. You can watch the entire 6-minute video in the link, but here's one obvious conclusion:

"We are raising another generation of girls who kind of measure their self-worth based on what's on the outside," Dr. Logan Levkoff, author of the book Third Base Ain't What it Used to Be said to "Good Morning America."

Make-up is just part of the challenge. Young girls are confronted daily with advertising and media input that insists that they should be concerned with how they look. The NYU Child Study Center offers this disturbing information in an article entitled "How to Raise Girls with Healthy Self-Esteem:"

• Eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression are the most common mental health problems in girls. 
• 59% of 5–12th grade girls in one survey were dissatisfied with their body shape.
• 20–40% of girls begin dieting at age 10.
• By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys.
• Among 5–12th graders, 47% said they wanted to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
• Health risks accompany girls' drop in self-esteem due to risky eating habits, depression, and unwanted pregnancy.
• Girls aged 10 and 12 are confronted with "teen" issues such as dating and sex, at increasingly earlier ages. 73% of 8–12–year-olds dress like teens and talk like teens.
• 20–40% of girls begin dieting at age 10.
• By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys.
• Among 5–12th graders, 47% said they wanted to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
• Health risks accompany girls' drop in self-esteem due to risky eating habits, depression, and unwanted pregnancy.  
• Girls aged 10 and 12 are confronted with "teen" issues such as dating and sex, at increasingly earlier ages. 73% of 8–12–year olds dress like teens and talk like teens.

The countermeasures to all these sad statistics are in the hands of parents. There's a list of specific suggestions in the report (such as open communication about the issues, good role modelling, avoiding stereotyping), but the conclusion is:

"It is within the family that a girl first develops a sense of who she is and who she wants to become. Parents armed with knowledge can create a psychological climate that will enable each girl to achieve her full potential." 

Make-up for children is more than a consumer issue; it's an ethical issue. But how young is too young to wear it? I was surprised to learn that some parents don't find Geo Girl products objectionable. And, for the record, WalMart marketers have said that they'll be targeting the parents, not the kids, offering the make-up as a "green" alternative. Somehow that seems as disingenuous as toy manufacturers saying they target parents with their advertising.

I can't imagine the pressures that little girls feel today to be sexy. It seems such a sad loss of innocence and childhood years that should be enjoyed without that kind of burden. I'm not a parent, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'll try to keep an open mind, but I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that an eight-year old needs anti-aging cream.

© 2011 Cynthia Friedlob
Image credit: Sonia Castro at StockXchng

The Power of Marketing to Kids

I know that the holidays are a big deal when you're a kid. But I'm also an advocate of parents knowing where to draw the line when it comes to gifts. (Easy for me to say; I'm not a parent!)

Yet, every child wants something special -- maybe a pricey bicycle, an expensive musical instrument, or a hard-to-find toy. So every parent who can afford to, and many who can't, do their very best to accommodate their children's wishes. In holidays long past, parents might buy the item second-hand and that often was just as satisfying as one that was brand new.

Today, techno-toys (anything from computers to fancy phones to game machines) seem to top the list for a lot of kids. Because technology changes so rapidly, second-hand goods in this category are usually going to be outdated and not an adequate substitute. Also because of the rapid changes, many new technology-based gifts will require expensive upgrades, usually more quickly than parents expect. You can also bet that they'll get discarded more quickly than parents expect, too, when the next new toy comes along.

So I was interested to read a blog post by my favorite marketing guru, Seth Godin, called "When Marketing Goes Nuclear" and watch the associated video showing the reactions of various kids, each opening a gift that turns out to be a Nintendo Wii. According to Seth, the video shows what happens when "scarcity plus Christmas plus social pressure plus greed plus kids = critical mass." He found the video disturbing; I'm on the fence about it. I would hope that some kids would be equally excited to find a less expensive gift that they also wanted, but maybe that's no longer realistic thinking.

When did marketing to kids take over to the point that "every" kid wants the same thing, and wants it desperately? Does it go all the way back to Tickle Me Elmo? Cabbage Patch Kids? Shirley Temple dolls? When did a techno-toy become the most important thing to have? Are girls and boys equally excited about them? At what age does the techno-toy desire kick in?

I've got a million more questions.

What do you think of the video?


© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Selling a Sexy Halloween to Little Girls

I think the eighties was the decade when the definition of appropriate clothing for young girls changed radically. Madonna was the primary pop culture culprit. She pranced and posed through her music video of "Like a Virgin," capturing the hearts of men and boys, but also providing a new kind of role model for girls, including very young girls who probably didn't know what "virgin" meant.

Some twenty-five years later, I suppose they'd now have to be very, very young girls to be that uninformed. It should be no great surprise that most young girls are not only more sophisticated and more aware of their sexuality than in decades past, but they also have to deal with pressure to behave as if they were more experienced than what is likely to be comfortable for their emotional maturity level.

Then, along comes Halloween, the holiday that justifies dressing up as any fantasy character that's appealing. It used to be Snow White, or a ballerina, or maybe a princess costume that younger girls gravitated to most often, but that's not the case any more. And it's certainly not the case for the manufacturers and marketers of Halloween costumes.

Diane E. Levin is professor of education at Wheelock College in Boston and the co-author, with Jean Kilbourne, of So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids. She shared her observations in an LA Times interview that I strongly recommend reading in its entirety. Here are a few excerpts :

"Halloween costumes for 7- and 8-year-old girls and even younger have become downright titillating, and for tweens and teens, the vast majority of those sold in stores and on the Internet are unabashedly sexually alluring. Little girls and their big sisters are being encouraged to get dressed up, in many cases, like child prostitutes. . . .

"The sexy princess costumes, sexy witch costumes seem to be most ubiquitous and most dramatic. For girls 8 and up, the skirt will have a big slit on one side. By the time girls are 12, the costumes are low cut."

The results of this early sexualization of girls, according to Dr. Levin, are complex:

". . . the girls' costumes set up certain expectations in boys as well as in the girls who wear them or want them. What are boys' reactions, looking at girls when they're all dressed up in these sexy costumes? They think, 'That must be what girls look like to be pretty, and being pretty is the important thing.' . . . How [girls] look and what they buy [also] affects their view of themselves. But it also becomes the basis for how they treat other girls. It's harder and harder to have [girl friendship] relationships. . . .

"This is why we may be seeing a generation in which [social] relationships are often played out as interactions between caricatures of sexual stereotypes, why you can have 'friends with benefits' and 'hooking up.'"

We're a conflicted society when it comes to sex and violence. We don't seem to mind depictions of violence, thus the many gory Halloween costumes for little boys, including terrifying characters from films that they are too young to see without an adult present. (I've never figured out how simply having an adult present somehow immunizes a child against the disturbing emotional effects of grotesque and gratuitous carnage, but that's the accepted cultural standard.) Yet children are almost fanatically protected against seeing any depiction of sexuality in film.

Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about exposing young kids to either sex or violence on screen, but, of the two, allowing children to see graphic movie violence is far more disturbing to me.

I am quite certain that, as a society, we abhor real life violence directed against children and we certainly don't want children engaging in sexual behavior when they're still emotionally and psychologically too immature for the experience. But somehow, in spite of this, it's become all right to sexualize the appearance of our little girls in real life, long before they understand or are prepared to deal with what that means.

A Newsweek.com article (take a look at the photos on this link!) on this phenomenon reported:

"Witches are 'wayward' and grammar-school pirates are 'wenches.' A girl isn't an Army cadet, she's a 'Major Flirt,' and who knew female firefighters wore fishnet stockings? Even Little Bo Peep comes with a corset, short skirt and lacy petticoat. . . .

"Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, [is] a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, 'Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner.' . . .
[There is] increasing evidence of the negative impact an overemphasis on body image has on girls' lives. The APA task force's team of psychologists linked oversexualization with three of the most common mental health problems for women 18 and older: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression. And there is evidence that the effect is trickling down the age brackets. 'Clinicians are reporting that younger and younger girls are presenting with eating disorders and are on diets,' says Zurbriggen.

Later in the same article, Dr. Sharon Lamb, another APA task force member who coauthored, 'Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketing Schemes,' was interviewed:

". . . most Web sites selling kids Halloween costumes divide merchandise along gender lines, and typically offer more choices for boys than girls (boys get to be doctors, police officers as well as gory monsters and 'Star Wars' characters). Of the 22 girl costumes featured on one Web site Lamb looked at, 15 were cheerleaders, divas and rock stars. 'That really limits girls' imaginations,' says Lamb, who surveyed 600 young girls for the book, many of whom admitted to dressing up as something sexy for Halloween in order to get attention."

I recall seeing a documentary some years ago that explained that children have a clear understanding of culturally defined gender role differences by the age of five. What was considered appropriate for girls versus appropriate for boys in those young minds included every societal stereotype imaginable, from girls not being athletic to boys not being allowed to cry. It was quite surprising, and rather depressing, to discover how effectively these models had been internalized by that early age.

What kind of models are being internalized by five year old children now?

The popularity of sexually provocative Halloween costumes for young girls reflects of some of today's confused societal norms. But who knew that costumes for boys have been affected, too?

An article for the Canadian CBC News reported:

"Not only girls are targeted with sexualized costumes. Boys can choose packages of pimp paraphernalia as part of their costumes."

Oh, fabulous. Girls dressing like little hookers and boys with "pimp paraphernalia." Parents, brace yourselves. (But don't you wonder what exactly is included in the paraphernalia?)

I'm grateful to know that there are still some children that have fun at Halloween without sexual referencing in their costumes. Otherwise, we might as well just redefine the meaning of "Trick or Treat!"


© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Marketing Wine and Politics

I was quite amused to read about Wine Spectator magazine's award of excellence in the August issue to Milan's Osteria L'Intrepido restaurant. Let me make it clear that I know absolutely nothing about wine; like quite a number of unlucky people, I'm allergic to the sulfites in it, so I don't drink it at all. Still, the award struck a chord: the restaurant doesn't exist.

Wine critic and author Robin Goldstein decided to test the legitimacy of the awards by creating a faux restaurant with website, menu, even on-line reviews. The stamp of approval (including gold plaque) that the winning restaurants receive from the now perhaps formerly respected magazine is used as a prominent marketing tool.

Goldstein explained, "I submitted the fee ($250), a cover letter, a copy of the restaurant’s menu (a fun amalgamation of somewhat bumbling nouvelle-Italian recipes), and a wine list. . . The main wine list that I submitted was a perfectly decent selection from around Italy that met the magazine’s basic criteria (about 250 wines, including whites, reds, and sparkling wines–some of which scored well in WS). However, Osteria L’Intrepido’s high-priced 'reserve wine list' was largely chosen from among some of the lowest-scoring Italian wines in Wine Spectator over the past few decades." Indeed, most of the wines were utterly trashed in the magazine's previous reviews.

Goldstein exposed the true nature of his prize-winning restaurant entry on Friday, August 15th, at the meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists in Portland, Oregon, much to the chagrin of Wine Spectator magazine and the undoubted delight of some of the conference attendees.

The LA Times story on the bogus award comments:

"Getting the award, however, isn't exactly like winning an Olympic medal. This year, nearly 4,500 restaurants spent $250 each to apply or reapply for the Wine Spectator award, and all but 319 won the award of excellence or some greater kudos . . . That translates to more than $1 million in revenue."

Quite a tidy profit for the magazine, should we be so jaded as to think that there may be a desire for profit motivating the awards.

But I find that an observation Goldstein made about consumers in general is particularly noteworthy:

"He contends that people think wine tastes better when they know it is expensive, citing as evidence taste tests that show two-thirds of people preferred a $12 Domaine Ste. Michelle Brut, a Washington state sparkling wine, to a $150 Dom Perignon Champagne. "

Further proof that we, the consumers, are suckers. If we can be convinced through savvy marketing and advertising that a brand will provide what we want (in this case, taste but also elegance, sophistication and exclusivity), we open our pockets and pull out the required cash -- better make that credit.

Recently, one of my favorite bloggers, marketing guru Seth Godin, posted an insight about the purpose of advertising when trying to gain market share: it's to make us unhappy by making us want something. If we're unhappy, then we buy the thing that fulfills the want. Notice I said "want," not "need." So, if we want elegance, sophistication and exclusivity, we'd better pop for the expensive champagne because otherwise we'll be unhappy, even though the less expensive brand would make at least two-thirds of us quite content with what we're drinking.

Godin also frequently explains marketing as storytelling. If, for example, you define yourself as elegant and sophisticated, a product that tells its story in a way that appeals to that definition of yourself, i.e., the two stories are in alignment (they resonate), you will want that product. You'll pay $138 more for a bottle of champagne to keep your stories consistent.

Godin applies his observation to politics, too:

"It's essentially impossible to tell a story to an entire population and have it resonate with all of them. The global warming story, for example, has influenced some people a great deal and been dismissed out of hand by others. While most marketers spend their time telling stories about themselves, politicians spend a lot of time telling negative stories about the competition. It's illuminating, because it makes the resonance idea really clear."

I urge you to read Godin's entire post, but here's the part I find most important to remember during the continuing political campaign:

"Choose your story (or the competition's story) wisely, because you have to live with it for a long time, and if it's not authentic, if it doesn't hold up, you're left with nothing."

Or, more likely, you're left with trouble.

If we can be manipulated to buy a $150 bottle of champagne when a $12 bottle might very well do – and make no mistake, each of us can be manipulated about some things – then we owe it to ourselves and our country to make our best effort to find and connect with the authentic story of our candidates.

It's important to be thoughtful consumers, but it's more important to be thoughtful voters and not get swept away by the marketing noise of the campaign. That noise isn't just popping champagne corks; it's marketers trying to manipulate our future.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Advertising to Children in a Consumer Society

(A software glitch resulted in most of my subscribers not receiving this post last week, so I'm publishing it again. A comment and response are on the original post, dated February 26th, so I'm leaving that post up, too, rather than deleting it. For those of you who are receiving this for the second time, please accept my apologies.)

Even the most sophisticated adults can have their opinions swayed by a clever advertising campaign -- any clever advertising campaign. Ads promoting green products appeal to our desire to help protect our environment. Ads touting luxury goods convince us of the positive impact they'll have on everything from our careers to our sex lives. Ads lure us to shops (or websites) to buy everything from killer shoes to the coolest techno gadgetry to the latest designer furnishings, all of which, according to the ads, surely will improve our status in the eyes of others. The marketers' entire raison d'être is to convince us that whatever they're selling, we'd better hurry up and start buying because we're incomplete or inadequate or simply behind the times if we don't. And those marketers are very, very good at what they do.

So, if an otherwise seemingly rational adult male can be persuaded to spend two months' salary purchasing a diamond engagement ring (an arbitrary amount that the diamond industry decided was "appropriate"), and an apparently sensible woman can be coaxed into changing her wardrobe in order to conform to what's "in style" every season, how does a child react to advertising? No defense mechanisms have been put into place in a child's brain (and look how vulnerable we adults are, even psychologically armed to the hilt with our supposed maturity), so the impact advertisers have is enormous. Multiply this power to influence with the ubiquity and frequency of ads that kids are exposed to, and we have what politicians might call "a situation." I'd call it a disaster.

In a Wall Street Journal article last year about fashion bullying, reporter Vanessa O'Connell explains:

"Guidance counselors and psychologists say fashion bullying is reaching a new level of intensity as more designers launch collections targeted at kids. As a result, an increasing number of school and community programs focused on girl-on-girl bullying are addressing peer pressure and the sizable role clothing plays in girls' identity."

Pressure to conform is nothing new, but O'Connell states, "Teens and adolescents are expected to wear not just any designer brands but the 'right' ones."

I don't believe that an eleven-year-old girl should feel that she must wear the "right" designer just to get through her day at school. It's too much pressure, too soon, and at too great an expense for many families.

Concern about advertising pressure isn't new either. Katherine Knorr wrote an article in the International Herald Tribune back in 1999, shortly after designer Calvin Klein created his disturbing underwear ads featuring children. Knorr comments:

"Clothes catalogues sell skintight two-piece outfits (bra and pedal pushers) advertising the boys band '2 Be 3' (the Chippendales for the pre-teen set) to 10-year-olds. The boys in the band are bare-chested. The little girl models strike alluring poses. . . . The marketing of clothes — some of them pretty raunchy — to children and pre-teens raises all sorts of issues about what clothes 'mean,' and about the influence of the vast network of popular culture salesmanship and the sickening cult of celebrity. It is ironic that, as fashion enters the third millennium, clothes for grown-up women have become positively genteel, with the twin set seeming ubiquitous and even the bad Brits toned down. It seems the real fashion victims now are Lolita's age."

Nine years later, the twin set may not be de rigeur for the average woman, but selling provocative clothing to kids has become an even bigger business.

James U. McNeal wrote an article for the Center for Media Literacy called, "From Savers to Spenders: How Children Became a Consumer Market," excerpted from a book he had published in 1987. He came to a conservative and rather polite conclusion:

". . . something needs to be done to improve the marketing-child consumer connection. A strong relationship is a good thing for marketers - it means sales and profits now, and even greater sales and profits in the future. It is a good thing for children - it provides enormous input to their consumer socialization process as well as current satisfaction from products and their purchase of them. But no one should forget that children, particularly those under eight, are vulnerable to commercial abuses. Marketers have been shown to be abusive to children far too many times for their good will to be assumed." [Italics mine.]

Bringing us back to more recent material, The American Academy of Pediatrics published an article in December of 2006 called "Children, Adolescents and Advertising" which concluded:

"Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone and increasingly are being exposed to advertising on the Internet, in magazines, and in schools. This exposure may contribute significantly to childhood and adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use. Media education has been shown to be effective in mitigating some of the negative effects of advertising on children and adolescents."

Here's an excerpt from a market research company report on advertising to kids in China:

"As China develops into one of the world’s largest economies, and its consumer market grows in world significance, so the Chinese consumer of tomorrow has become the focus of huge amounts of product and brand marketing expenditure. If the children of today can be made loyal to a brand now, what potential for sales in the future, in a country where the economy continues to grow at over 9% a year? China’s children are bombarded with media messages from all angles, all the time - from billboards, posters, TV at home, TV in taxis, cinemas, magazines, food packaging, lunch boxes, clothing, text messages, websites, store shelves, radios, etc. All of this is having an effect, and some of it detrimental. Childhood obesity rates are soaring, and rates of depression and mental health problems are also increasing. . . This is also the generation of the One Child Policy - the 'little emperors', doted upon by two parents and up to four grandparents, plus various aunts and uncles. Only children, in a society of only children, will learn to, and be expected to behave differently, more pressure to succeed will be placed upon them, and all of this is affecting how these children see themselves within their society, and how this affects their behaviour as people, and as consumers."

There's a wealth of information available in print and online that discusses, debates and attempts to explain the process of advertising to kids and the results we're all living with today. If this is an issue that interests or perhaps infuriates you, here are just a few links worth exploring:

The Center for Media Literacy website has a substantial and interesting list of articles in its Parents, Kids and Media section. Topics range from Economic Lessons for Young Viewers to Altered States: How Television Changes Childhood.

Global Issues has a full section called Children as Consumers with many links on the topic.

Get a Canadian perspective on the problem at About Kids Health.

Get an Australian perspective at Natural News.

Although there's much more available to read, you might want to conclude by reviewing the Special Report: Marketing to Children from Direct, a magazine that gives the marketer's point of view and makes clear the significance of kids as consumers. The report's opening line:

"What do you call someone who makes post-purchase decisions? Answer: A parent."

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Advertising to Children in a Consumer Society

Even the most sophisticated adults can have their opinions swayed by a clever advertising campaign -- any clever advertising campaign. Ads promoting green products appeal to our desire to help protect our environment. Ads touting luxury goods convince us of the positive impact they'll have on everything from our careers to our sex lives. Ads lure us to shops (or websites) to buy everything from killer shoes to the coolest techno gadgetry to the latest designer furnishings, all of which, according to the ads, surely will improve our status in the eyes of others. The marketers' entire raison d'être is to convince us that whatever they're selling, we'd better hurry up and start buying because we're incomplete or inadequate or simply behind the times if we don't. And those marketers are very, very good at what they do.

So, if an otherwise seemingly rational adult male can be persuaded to spend two months salary purchasing a diamond engagement ring (an arbitrary amount that the diamond industry decided was "appropriate"), and an apparently sensible woman can be coaxed into changing her wardrobe in order to conform to what's "in style" every season, how does a child react to advertising? No defense mechanisms have been put into place in a child's brain (and look how vulnerable we adults are, even psychologically armed to the hilt with our supposed maturity), so the impact advertisers have is enormous. Multiply this power to influence with the ubiquity and frequency of ads that kids are exposed to, and we have what politicians might call "a situation." I'd call it a disaster.

In a Wall Street Journal article last year about fashion bullying, reporter Vanessa O'Connell explains:

"Guidance counselors and psychologists say fashion bullying is reaching a new level of intensity as more designers launch collections targeted at kids. As a result, an increasing number of school and community programs focused on girl-on-girl bullying are addressing peer pressure and the sizable role clothing plays in girls' identity."

Pressure to conform is nothing new, but O'Connell states, "Teens and adolescents are expected to wear not just any designer brands but the 'right' ones."

I don't believe that an eleven-year-old girl should feel that she must wear the "right" designer just to get through her day at school. It's too much pressure, too soon, and at too great an expense for many families.

Concern about advertising pressure isn't new either. Katherine Knorr wrote an article in the International Herald Tribune back in 1999, shortly after designer Calvin Klein created his disturbing underwear ads featuring children. Knorr comments:

"Clothes catalogues sell skintight two-piece outfits (bra and pedal pushers) advertising the boys band '2 Be 3' (the Chippendales for the pre-teen set) to 10-year-olds. The boys in the band are bare-chested. The little girl models strike alluring poses. . . . The marketing of clothes — some of them pretty raunchy — to children and pre-teens raises all sorts of issues about what clothes 'mean,' and about the influence of the vast network of popular culture salesmanship and the sickening cult of celebrity. It is ironic that, as fashion enters the third millennium, clothes for grown-up women have become positively genteel, with the twin set seeming ubiquitous and even the bad Brits toned down. It seems the real fashion victims now are Lolita's age."

Nine years later, the twin set may not be de rigeur for the average woman, but selling provocative clothing to kids has become an even bigger business.

James U. McNeal wrote an article for the Center for Media Literacy called, "From Savers to Spenders: How Children Became a Consumer Market," excerpted from a book he had published in 1987. He came to a conservative and rather polite conclusion:

". . . something needs to be done to improve the marketing-child consumer connection. A strong relationship is a good thing for marketers - it means sales and profits now, and even greater sales and profits in the future. It is a good thing for children - it provides enormous input to their consumer socialization process as well as current satisfaction from products and their purchase of them. But no one should forget that children, particularly those under eight, are vulnerable to commercial abuses. Marketers have been shown to be abusive to children far too many times for their good will to be assumed." [Italics mine.]

Bringing us back to more recent material, The American Academy of Pediatrics published an article in December of 2006 called "Children, Adolescents and Advertising" which concluded:

"Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone and increasingly are being exposed to advertising on the Internet, in magazines, and in schools. This exposure may contribute significantly to childhood and adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use. Media education has been shown to be effective in mitigating some of the negative effects of advertising on children and adolescents."

Here's an excerpt from a market research company report on advertising to kids in China:

"As China develops into one of the world’s largest economies, and its consumer market grows in world significance, so the Chinese consumer of tomorrow has become the focus of huge amounts of product and brand marketing expenditure. If the children of today can be made loyal to a brand now, what potential for sales in the future, in a country where the economy continues to grow at over 9% a year? China’s children are bombarded with media messages from all angles, all the time - from billboards, posters, TV at home, TV in taxis, cinemas, magazines, food packaging, lunch boxes, clothing, text messages, websites, store shelves, radios, etc. All of this is having an effect, and some of it detrimental. Childhood obesity rates are soaring, and rates of depression and mental health problems are also increasing. . . This is also the generation of the One Child Policy - the 'little emperors', doted upon by two parents and up to four grandparents, plus various aunts and uncles. Only children, in a society of only children, will learn to, and be expected to behave differently, more pressure to succeed will be placed upon them, and all of this is affecting how these children see themselves within their society, and how this affects their behaviour as people, and as consumers."

There's a wealth of information available in print and online that discusses, debates and attempts to explain the process of advertising to kids and the results we're all living with today. If this is an issue that interests or perhaps infuriates you, here are just a few links worth exploring:

The Center for Media Literacy website has a substantial and interesting list of articles in its Parents, Kids and Media section. Topics range from Economic Lessons for Young Viewers to Altered States: How Television Changes Childhood.

Global Issues has a full section called Children as Consumers with many links on the topic.

Get a Canadian perspective on the problem at About Kids Health.

Get an Australian perspective at Natural News.

Although there's much more available to read, you might want to conclude by reviewing the Special Report: Marketing to Children from Direct, a magazine that gives the marketer's point of view and makes clear the significance of kids as consumers. The report's opening line:

"What do you call someone who makes post-purchase decisions? Answer: A parent."

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Getmas and Civility

Chris Erskine writes a column for the LA Times called "Man of the House." I don't usually read it (sorry, Chris) because its about family life from the dad's point of view. A guy thing.

"Brewster Rockit" is a Tribune-syndicated comic strip by Tim Rickard. I don't usually read it either (sorry, Tim) because its a sci-fi tale about a completely incompetent spaceship captain in the distant future and the humor just doesn't work for me. Another guy thing. Maybe a young guy thing.

However, props must be given to both Erskine and Rickard for their recent offerings that I happened to notice by chance in the last few days.

Brewster Rockit currently features a storyline about "Getmas" in which Brewster wonders if perhaps the upcoming holiday wasn't originally about somethings else -- perhaps "giving." This is a thought worth pondering, especially if we remember that giving doesn't necessarily mean giving stuff.

Erskine wrote a column called "Give the 'tude a holiday rest" an odd admonition, he acknowledges, for a guy who lives in L.A., "the world capital of ego and affectation." He points out that attitude -- that self-aggrandizing superiority that is just a tiny notch below blatant hostility -- is "a slap in the face to manners, class and character." I agree with him one hundred per cent.

I find it amazing that swagger and smugness appear to have become generally desirable traits that, if you believe the ads, can be achieved by purchasing the latest car/clothes/jewelry/etc. I've commented in the past (here and here) about this deadly affliction of "cool" and how it's used as one of the basic motivators to manipulate us through advertising.

Unfortunately, attitude now seems to be almost everywhere in popular culture and it's created a basic lack of civility that has infected our society. I think it's time to call a halt; or maybe I'd settle for a more realistically achievable holiday time out.

So, as the remaining seasonal "shopping days" finally dwindle (is there nothing other than shopping that we could be doing with our time?) and we head into the new year, I'd like to cast my vote for remembering that this is a season of giving, not getting. Let's not let Getmas take over our celebrations.

This is also a particularly busy and stressful season in which a little less attitude would be appreciated. Maybe slow down on the freeway and let the other guy into your lane. Give the checker at the market a break, even if you're in a hurry. And for the sake of sanity, get off the cell phone while you're driving or shopping or dealing with paying a salesclerk. Let's make at least a small effort to be civil to each other.

And let's pause to contemplate Erskine's insightful closing observation:

"[R]emember that the most mythic figures of our time never needed attitude [Joe Montana, Elvis Presley -- Shrek!] . . . For them, talent and skill outweighed posturing. Mostly, they always had the courage to be who they really were. And, really, how totally cool is that?"

It should be cool enough for all of us.

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Advertising's Assault on Our Senses

Have you noticed that advertising is popping up everywhere? And I don't mean just on your computer screen.

We expect to find ads in our magazines, newspapers, on television and radio; we're not surprised to find flyers and brochures stuck on the doorknobs of our homes, laying on any table in any office waiting room, slipped under the windshield wipers of our cars. We've seen plenty of billboards, neon signs, and posters plastered on the sides of walls surrounding construction sites. On lawns we see real estate sales signs; sometimes we see signs supporting political candidates or, if there's remodeling going on, signs promoting the construction company. We tune out most of these ads because there are simply more "buy! use! buy!" messages than our poor brains can process in a single day.

But let's consider some other advertising "encounter spots" we face regularly:

At grocery stores we find ads on the child seats in the grocery cart; there are signs or devices holding coupons sticking out into the aisles; announcements are made telling us of specials of the day; the store's name is on the carrying bags, sometimes accompanied by an additional message from another advertiser ("Save on the price of admission to [insert name of your local amusement park here] for Jubilee Whatever Days!") Even that little plastic bar that you're supposed to use to separate your order from the next one is statistically proven, prime ad space. Media Life Magazine reports:

"At a fraction of a billboard's 600 plus square feet, the messages carried on AdSticks, the plastic bars that separate your groceries from the next guy's in line, might be considered obscure. But with a 35 percent average sales lift and a reach into over 32 million households, advertisers are lining up to put their images on these mini-billboards."

My local stores must be behind the curve with their plain conveyor belts at the checkout lines because last year Marketing Blurb informed us that:

". . . a company called EnVision Marketing Group is introducing a patented system to print digital photo-quality ads directly on grocery store checkout lane conveyor belts. This would certainly keep us entertained for several loops while we load the belt with branded goodies from the food aisles."

One of the most annoying ad assaults was installed, then removed, from one of my neighborhood stores: the constantly playing video monitor at the head of the checkout line. A September 7th post at MediaInfoCenter brings us up to date on this phenomenon:

"As television networks seek a captive viewing audience online, CBS also is searching on actual lines: in doctors' offices, at car repair shops, and now, at the grocery store. That push was highlighted yesterday by CBS's agreement to buy SignStorey, which owns digital video displays in more than 1,400 supermarkets around the country. CBS will pay $71.5 million for the company, which it plans to rename CBS Outernet.

"CBS has had an exclusive distribution agreement with SignStorey since 2006, exposing the network's programming to 72 million shoppers a month at SuperValu, Pathmark, ShopRite, Price Chopper and other stores, including those in six of the top 10 markets. The network chops its programming – both news and entertainment – into 10- or 20-second chunks that shoppers can catch as they wander around the store."

Oh, boy. Catching chunks of programming while I shop – as if the shopping experience wasn't already sufficiently aggravating. But that isn't enough ad exposure as far as CBS is concerned. The article continues:

"'One of our mantras as we head forward is, 'We produce great content. We are now going to get paid for our great content in a million different ways,'" said CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves.

"The network, for example, has had a deal with AMR's American Airlines for almost a decade, which helps CBS both market its programs and generate ad revenue. American Airlines flights offer CBS programs, and the network sells ads that appear in the programs. Mr. Moonves credits that agreement with helping to build an early audience for 'Everybody Loves Raymond,' a comedy that became a monster hit for the network.

"Several weeks ago, CBS entered into an agreement with AVTV Networks that includes showing CBS programming in the waiting rooms of doctors' offices around the U.S. CBS says the program reaches 300,000 viewers monthly now but expects the service to reach as many as three million viewers per month in 2008. CBS also has distribution agreements with Royal Caribbean Cruises, the Mall of America, Simon Malls, and AutoNet TV and Salon Network Channel, networks that play in auto-body shops and a line of Midwestern beauty salons, respectively.

"I would love for somebody to be able to say, 'I'm really getting sick of seeing all this CBS stuff,'" says George Schweitzer, president of the CBS Marketing Group. 'That'd be a compliment.'"

Mr. Schweitzer, allow me to be the first to compliment you: I haven't even seen all of your CBS stuff and I'm already sick of it. And, Mr. Mooves, please stop gleefully rubbing your hands together and stifle that greedy "bwaaaaa-haaaa-haaaa-haaaa" laugh.

Is there nowhere to turn without being assaulted by an advertisement?

If you go to a movie, you can expect a half-hour of straight product advertising followed by movie trailers advertising more movies before the film you want to see begins. Of course, you could always choose to see movies on your cell phone (I'm admittedly unclear why anyone would make that choice) but, if you use Verizon as a service provider, you'd be treated to ads there, too.

Think you'll just get out of town and get away from it all for awhile? At the airport, besides all the obvious spots, ads can now be found on the tray where you put your stuff while you go through the security scan; get seated on the plane and you're likely to see an ad on your tray table.

Face it: there's no escape.

Take a look at Business Week's fascinating photo essay on some of the truly clever advertising techniques that are now in use, including temporary ads on long, skinny stickers that are placed over parking space stripes in parking lots; manhole covers in New York topped by ads for steaming cups of coffee; Cingular's name plastered on "I Love New York" pizza delivery boxes.

And to get back to that ad assault in the grocery store, CBS is etching ads for its fall programs on eggs – yes, you read that correctly, etching ads on eggs. (If you don't click on any other link in this post, please click on that one!)

Well, I'm not buying it. Advertising may be assaulting our senses, but it doesn't have to make us senseless. I'm going to take a stand by remembering a favorite quote from 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal:

"All man's problems derive from not being able to sit quietly in an empty room."

I hope you'll join me in a moment of quiet protest against ubiquitous advertising. In fact, I think that's such a great idea, I'm going to try to figure out how to spread the word.

You know, advertise it.

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Teach Your Children Well

Graham Nash wrote the memorable song that lends its title to this essay. The lyrics are about the relationship between a parent and child. Released in 1970 on the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young album, "Déjà vu," the song has reached another generation through its use on television in "The Office" (the U.S. version) and "Six Feet Under." The message is certainly just as relevant as it was almost forty years ago. So what exactly are we teaching the next generation?

Apparently, we're teaching them to be obsessed with fashion and luxury. In a September LA Times article, Monica Corcoran reported:

"Designer labels make up about 15.3% of purchases by 13- to 17-year-olds, according to a recent study by New York-based marketing research firm NPD Group. Five years ago, that figure hovered at 9.6%. And increasingly, luxury brands are catering to younger customers."

I found the article depressing. Yes, it focused on a small group of girls at a swanky private school that caters to the outrageously wealthy denizens of L.A., but consider this:

"In this month's Teen Vogue, glossy ads for oversized fall handbags by Gucci, Chloé, and Louis Vuitton can be found in the first 10 pages of the mini-magazine with a cult following among teenagers. . . .And that's just the ads. The women's media website Jezebel.com recently tallied the prices of the merchandise featured in the editorial content of the September issue of Teen Vogue to a total of $74,458. Per their research, Cosmopolitan -- not CosmoGirl, mind you -- rang in at just $27,636.64."

The pressure is on and it's not just the children of wealthy families that feel it. As James McNeal pointed out in an interesting Center for Media Literacy report that holds up quite well despite being dated 1987, there was a time, in the first half of the twentieth century, that children were not targeted as consumers. Those days are far, far behind us. Now the market for kids rakes in billions of dollars every year. Advertisers know just how to cash in, too.

UnderstandMedia.com explains the simple process of conditioning through advertising. Please note that the article acknowledges that the technique applies to selling to adults, too [the brackets are mine]:

"From a very young age, the media teaches children how to be consumers in society. The media tells children about everything from what types of cereal to eat to what type of clothes to wear. They do this by using a creative technique that doesn't involve selling the product itself.

"Commercials aimed towards children (and pretty much everyone else also) don't sell products at all. Instead, commercials aim to sell an emotional response in regards to their products.

"This affects children [and adults] deeply, as children [and adults] are taught to base their purchases on emotional desires rather than actual need. One such desire is the need to be liked. Children often want to buy products that make them seem cool in the eyes of their peers. If one child wears designer jeans, and those designer jeans are seen as the thing to wear to be cool, other kids will want to wear those same jeans."

It's pretty straightforward. Anyone who came of age by the time television was commonplace in the home has been conditioned to buy what advertisers tell them to buy. But the most significant difference in selling to children in the last decade or so is total media saturation in our society.

Not only are children exposed to massive amounts of advertising in all media, including print, they also see thousands of hours of television, film, video and, significantly, on-line images annually that sell indirectly, often with more dramatic results than the ads produce. Product placement is a burgeoning business because simply seeing something under the "right" circumstances can generate sales. Even a glimpse of a favorite celebrity with or wearing an item can catapult the product to the top of the "must have" list for teens. Notice I said "celebrity," because fame itself is the primary marker, and sometimes the sole marker of status.

Of course, what children see and learn in the home still has enormous impact on their values. But what are they seeing there? Primarily, adults whose lives are ruled by consumption, often excessive consumption, motivated by the desire to have the "right" image -- just like their kids.

We're a society that is so completely image-saturated that image has become more significant than substance. This phenomenon has overtaken us to such a ludicrous extent that even the awards we give to our media stars (images as "role models," being given awards ostensibly based on their talents) are now overshadowed by the fashion show that precedes any awards ceremony and answers the burning question of "who" the stars are wearing. Their wardrobes are then later dissected with greater critical analysis than most of the visual entertainment in which they display their alleged abilities.

"Teach your children well," Graham Nash wrote, ". . . and feed them on your dreams." That's what's happening right now, just about everywhere we look. Dreams of the "right" image: fashionable, trendy, expensive.

What's a kid gonna do?

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Power to the People, Sort Of

Unlike this very long post, it was just a little two sentence article in the Consumer Briefs column of Sunday's LA Times, but it spoke volumes about the power of the consumer. Proctor & Gamble, gigantic marketer of just about every product imaginable having to do with the basic functioning of our homes, is going to start selling concentrated liquid laundry detergent in containers that are half the size of the current ones. This will "cut transportation and warehouse costs and reduce plastic that goes into landfill." Yes, huzzahs and cheers to them for their corporate cost-effective yet still noble effort, but the important thing is that they're doing it "to meet customer demand." Is it possible that concerns for the environment have reached some sort of critical mass with consumers and that has resulted in major corporations finally tipping over the edge into, dare I say it, green thinking? This is quite encouraging.

But while I'm delighted to know that consumers seem to have enough awareness and clout to influence positive change in a manufacturer the size of P&G, I'm less enthusiastic to learn about consumers' ability to influence a major retailer who sells women's shoes. Of course, it's a cliche to say that women love their shoes and have far too many pair in their closets. But we may have hit a new high in overindulgence reflected by the flagship store of Saks Fifth Avenue in New York City. In August, the store is opening an 8,500 square foot designer shoe salon that is so huge it will have its own ZIP code. Thanks to the clever plan of the Saks marketing executives, this eighth floor behemoth will even be named 10022-SHOE. It will feature, in addition to about a trillion shoes, "a VIP room for private shopping, an in-house cobbler and a chocolate cafe." (Footwear, obviously, is the only item of apparel a woman can shop for without guilt while simultaneously indulging in chocolate.)

One might conclude that there's a significant disconnect between (1) consumer sensitivity to the environment that results in an important change in product packaging and (2) consumer demand that causes the expansion of a shoe department to 150% its former size to accommodate the shopper who had custom glass shelves devoted to shoes in her home and her friend who estimated that she owned 500 pairs of shoes. But maybe there isn't a disconnect at all. Maybe, once again, we're all just responding to marketing and the cool factor.


I believe that people generally want to do "the right thing" and, at this particular moment in history, the right thing is to be aware of the impact we're having on the environment, then choose to do something, anything, that we believe will help. It's finally becoming cool to be "green." Not necessarily radical, No Impact Man, tree-hugging green, but green enough that we can demonstrate to ourselves and our friends that we're willing participants in the effort to help save the environment. (Of course, eventually messy coastal flooding from the continually rising sea levels may force all of us to reevaluate our level of commitment to change.)


How have we become aware of these environmental concerns? The media. But it's not just news stories that got our attention -- reporting the situation has been going on for ages; no, it's the opinion leaders, the people we think of as "cool" who have pushed awareness into the realm of the general public. If a famous person we admire is supporting an environmental cause, we're more inclined to pay attention, and most importantly, we're more inclined to act based on the endorsement of that famous person than if we're simply presented straight facts. That's the whole basis of marketing. That's why "causes" work so hard to get a famous spokesperson to represent them; they know we'll listen more attentively to the message and maybe even respond if we like the spokesperson.


In addition, we humans are social creatures, interacting daily in situations that require us to assess the hierarchy within the group of people and the circumstances around us. Who's someone to be reckoned with, who's someone easily dismissed, who's at about our level and therefore possibly a comfortable associate? And let's face it, our appearance is what plunks us right down on "our" spot on the hierarchy. No discussion is necessary about the legitimacy of making this kind of evaluation -- of course it's ridiculous to presume all the things we do based on appearances, but it's also a reality. So I was interested to note the comment from a Saks shopper who said, "Because New York women don't have cars, their shoes and their handbags tell you everything about them. . .It's sort of their way of communicating themselves without being behind the wheel of a car."

I live in LA where recognizing and acknowledging status is an art because looks can be deceiving due to our extremely casual lifestyle. This shopper's comment made perfect sense to me. While in Beverly Hills the other day with my significant other, The Writer, I said to him that it was amazing how much the area had changed. Now practically everybody looks like a tourist (no offense, dear tourists, but you know how you dress sometimes; and yes, I've been known to go out looking less than fabulous, too). A few locals were easy to spot, but for many, many people on the street, the only clue to their wealth (except, perhaps, for an expensive watch) was to see what kind of car they got into. A total schlub could step into a Bugatti because here in a city where cars are of primary importance, the Bugatti was enough to make the status statement. (As I mentioned in a previous post, many well-known show biz types are now making the Prius a cool green status symbol, but that's often because those particular types already have recognizable faces.)


But in New York, where there's a more formal culture, and with winter to contend with, too, a statement of a different kind is required: shoes and bags. And at some point, status awareness becomes a function of marketing, not quality. Otherwise, why would one high-quality designer be the darling of the fashion world one season, only to be overthrown by a totally different high-quality designer the next season? In fact, it's the changeability of the fashion trends that send the cool signal. The more status currently accorded the brand, the cooler the individual who wears or carries it. And if Vogue (or Dwell or Style.com or whatever source is your favorite arbiter of style) says this is the designer, this is the wardrobe style, this is the lifestyle, you can pretty much bet that defines the aspirations of its target consumer. The manifestations may vary based on geography (LA people are more focused on cars, New Yorkers on shoes), but we all respond to what's presented to us as cool. It's a phenomenon that's fascinating, understandable, and sometimes unfortunate.


So the apparent consumer disconnect may not be quite as disconnected as it seems. In both cases, the concern for the environment and what we feel we require to make a status statement are to a great extent simply a function of marketing. Yes, we're more aware now that our purchasing choices can make a difference for the future of the planet and we're willing to help where we can. This is the good news. But we're also trying to function in the real world and wanting to assert ourselves in a way that demonstrates to others who we are in the scheme of things. The problem is we're not yet aware that it's possible to do that with fewer than five hundred pairs of shoes.

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Style, Advertising, and the Cool Factor

This week, I turn again to the Los Angeles Times, which generously continues to provide plenty of blog fodder with show-biz and style stories that range from the encouraging to the downright depressing. Here are a few examples.

On the positive front, Gina Piccalo reported that the "celebrity posse" is now passe. The excesses of celebrity have hardly been eliminated, so expensive hairdressers, chic stylists, personal trainers and private chefs are not quaking in their Uggs (okay, I'm really out of the loop; are those still considered fashionable?). However, Piccalo reports, "Big entourages are now widely seen as the sign of a neophyte, a has-been or a wannabe." Celebrities who require throngs of service-providers or scads of hangers-on are becoming the minority.

And what could be a greater demonstration of stuff-gone-mad in contemporary life than an assortment of human beings used essentially as accessories? Celebrity posse downsizing, or, even better, its elimination, is a great example of the cool factor in action: if it's no longer cool for celebrities to be perceived as high maintenance, then low or at least lower maintenance becomes desirable. Of course, it is all a matter of perception as Piccalo notes: "Authenticity (even if it's feigned) is a sure-fire way to stand apart from the decadence . . . chronicled by . . . the tabloids." But, it's the direction of the trend that's important and that trend is headed toward "less," not "more." Ostentation, in the form of stuff or people-as-stuff, is not cool.

Another interesting story came from Mimi Avins who wrote about the "anti-heirloom" wedding dress. Designers have been infiltrating the lower-priced market for all kinds of goods for quite a few years; think of Martha Stewart and Michael Graves. Now the market for formal bridal gowns, which are usually incredibly pricey, is host to more affordable creations by the likes of Isaac Mizrahi and Viktor & Rolf, no slouches in the designer pantheon. One J. Crew spokesman said of the type of bride who would be attracted to that company's lower-priced gowns, "She has a casual attitude and a pared-down style that comes from a level of sophistication." Translation: she's cool because less is more.

Most encouraging was a comment from 'Project Runway's' stylist, Tim Gunn (sorry, I don't watch the show, but based on the following quote, I do like the way this guy thinks). In an article by Booth Moore suggesting that buying the season's "It" handbag is not necessarily the smartest decision a fashion-conscious woman can make, Gunn says, "[T]here is a kind of social embarrassment to having an It bag. I would rather say, 'Gee, this is a $4,000 bag. Why don't I spend $600 instead and give the balance to charity?'" For those of us who have difficulty comprehending any reason to spend $4,000 on a bag, this kind of comment from a popular fashion stylist represents a huge leap forward and rates a mighty cheer. Thank you, Tim Gunn, for making it clear that it's simply not cool to spend that money so thoughtlessly.

On the downside, there was also a story by Kim Christensen about Deleese Williams, a woman who planned to be on the "Extreme Makeover" reality show (again, sorry, I don't watch the program). She was going to be given major facial plastic surgery and breast implants, but her participation was cancelled because the recovery process would take too long to fit the show's production schedule. According to a lawsuit filed by Ms. Williams, her sister had been "goaded by producers into videotaping 'hurtful and horrific statements' about [Ms. Williams'] appearance to heighten the drama." The lawsuit alleges that the sister ultimately committed suicide because of her grief over having said those things and then having the show back out of the planned surgery, thus causing emotional trauma to Ms. Williams.

While it's impossible for us to know the family dynamics at work in this situation, or the emotional health of any of the participants, what we do know is that a woman was so distressed about her physical appearance that she felt it was necessary to go through major, multiple surgeries to feel all right about herself. Accompanying the article was a fairly large photograph of one woman holding up a snapshot of another woman. At first glance, before reading the article, I thought perhaps the nearly-invisible woman in the little snapshot had been the one who felt she needed surgery and that something had gone wrong in the process, leaving her "emotionally scarred," as the headline read. Not until I'd read the photo caption carefully did I realize that the other woman was the potential focus of the make-over. I was stunned.

While it's unlikely anyone would call Ms. Williams fabulously attractive in this picture, she just looked to me like an average gal. She's thin (that quality is certainly in high demand), has long hair, maybe a mole on one side of her face. Hardly someone I'd peg as a candidate for an extreme physical makeover. But my opinion doesn't count; her feelings about herself were what led her to seek such drastic means of "improvement." In her mind, she needed to get some new "physical stuff," otherwise she'd never be happy. How many other women feel the same way? Too many.

Advertisers have us under their spells. We're constantly being told that we're lacking something and that's why our lives aren't the way we want them to be. The solution? Buy whatever they're selling, whether it's an expensive wedding gown, the season's It bag, or even a whole new face. Then you'll be surrounded by an adoring posse of admirers.

Oh, wait. That posse's no longer quite so cool, nor is the ultra-expensive wedding gown, nor the extravagant handbag. If we can just get to the point where the obsessive need for the ever-young, ever-flawless face and body isn't so cool either, we'll really be making progress.

I can dream, can't I?

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob