Every chick flick movie is entitled to at least one montage
sequence that shows the protagonist going through a “makeover” that usually
consists of extensive shopping and beauty treatments. Everyone goes shopping,
whether male of female but it’s known universally that women shop for fun, and
sometimes, they consider shopping a stress reliever.
So what is it that makes women enjoy shopping? Is it the
pleasure of buying clothes that will change how we look? Or is it the pleasure
of just spending money? If you ask me, for a long time ago, shopping has turned
from a process of attaining essential needs to a process that reinforces what
Hilary Rander calls in her book, autonomous individualism. In her book Neo-Feminist Cinema, Rander attributes
the autonomous individual to the woman who apprehends her pleasure for herself
and whose health can be measured by the body’s capacity to experience itself as
pleasurable. So shopping is now a way of proving one’s independence.
So, Do the female representations in media effect our own perception
of power and being a feminist? Well, being surrounded, or suffocated, by the
media that advocates for consumerism played a role in turning most women into
neo-feminists. According to Rander, Neo-feminism means, “control over one’s
body/face/self, accomplished through the right acquisitions can maximize one’s
value at both work and home.” Although we might not be aware of it, we shop for
the pleasure of having the power to choose what we want and how we look.
Although being a shopaholic in some way contradicts with one
of many things that feminism stands for, that is liberating women from being sexualized
in media, it seems that Neo-feminism has changed this view. Neo-feminism encourages
consumerism and individualism, while on the other hand; feminism had always
advocated for female solidarity and independence. So it is still possible to be
a feminist and a shopaholic?
Ever felt like you could use an ice cold Dr. Pepper every time you watch 90210? Or maybe you've felt like you need a Macbook because that's the only way your work will turn out spectacular? There's a reasonable explanation for that and the perfect term for that is called "Product Placement"
Product placement is an advertising tool, which is used as an alternative to long, and boring commercials. This is a successful way of promoting a product because not only will the targeted audience remain seated while watching it instead of the usual case where they would get up and run away, this will also find its way into their subconscious in the form of a subliminal message. The product will therefore dwell in their materialistic frame of mind.
Here's the Queen of Nothing aka Lady Gaga promoting Diet Coke in one of her music videos...
And a closer look...
And sure why not promote some beer for the young ones ...
I am going to focus on product placement specifically in music videos. Product placement is both subliminal and persuasive, and not necessarily in a good way. They are advocating for a consumerist society with the purchase of the latest products at the top of their to do list. Most companies would pay millions of dollars in order to push their products into any form of media outlets including social media sites or as it is also known as "Social Media Marketing"
Here's a sloppy presentation of products that don't necessarily belong in the video, which makes me wonder why on earth are they there?
Thanks to channels like Mtv which has nothing to do with music anymore I have some more examples…
Pay attention to what happens in minute 3:54
You'd think that there are various companies that would profit from this whole product placement business whereas in the end of the day there are only 1 or 2 companies who will benefit. What those videos have in common is the Sony products parade. This is not a coincidence since Sony BMG owns more than a quarter of the U.S. music market.
My advice to you is think, think and think before you purchase a new product, do you actually need it? How is this going to add something to your life?
How do film directors and producers ensure that their films don’t flunk, and end up being best sellers? I recently learned about certain risk management techniques that all these billion dollar production companies use to make sure that all the time and effort put into producing their movies don’t go to waste. They contain tactics like: - sticking to traditional genres and other conventions. - Hiring prominent writers, producers, or directors with a record of success. - Producing cultural products with built-in audiences, for example like: sequels, prequels, remakes, and spinoffs. Etc. There are many other risk management techniques that ensure the success of a film.
That got me thinking about books, and how most of these risk management techniques can be applied to books as well as films, and the first thing that popped into my mind was: Nicholas Sparks.
Why is Nicholas Sparks so famous? Why are his books all best sellers? Don’t people get sick of the same story over and over again? How is he not afraid of once writing a book that’s never going to be read? And the answer to all these questions lied in the risk management techniques.
Nicholas Sparks’ books contain many risk management techniques, and the most prominent ones are: sticking to the traditional genres and conventions. Who doesn’t love a heart-warming romance novel? Famous writer. Everyone knows who Nicholas Sparks is, and what he represents. Built-in audience. Even though his books aren’t sequels of one another, they all have the same basic story line.
All these tactics work because they give the people what they want. Sometimes all the people need is a typical boy meets girl story, with conflicts and ups and downs, and finally it all works out at the end. This is what the audience is looking for, and that is proven by the fact that all of his books are known and loved all over the world. The notebook, A walk to remember, Dear John, The last song, Safe Haven; all of these books are best sellers.
Most of them have been turned into films; highly successful films for that matter. Why? Because they contain what the consumer market wants. They have the same typical story line, a genre that is loved by millions of people, famous directors like Lasse Hallstorm, Adam Shankman and Nick cassavetes, and even the same cover picture; a recipe for great success.
Sadly, all these tactics really work, because at this moment, I really want to watch the newest movie, Safe Haven, based on Nicholas Sparks’ novel. It gives the viewer what they want, a safe, stable, enjoyable love story. At some point (even though none of us care to admit it) we want to watch a corny, mushy, love story where everything works out at the end, and the world is a big bowl of rainbow ice cream, with unicorns flying around. We want the typical cover picture of *hands on each other’s face - falling madly in love - everything is going to work out - living happily ever after*. We might criticize it being such a typical unrealistic love story, while rolling our eyes and leaving the movie theatre, but really, we knew that going in, why did we buy the tickets in the first place? It's our guilty pleasure.
Last class we talked about Girly films and their reinforcement of the importance of consumer culture to women. I remembered that I saw a TV commercial on TV of Center Point shopping mall, which depicted a fabulous experience of shopping over there for women, and used the female word for “you” in Arabic to say that “you are the center point here.” That spiked my interest, and so, I went out to the Center Point shopping mall to look for other things that cater to and encourage women to shop at the mall.
When I got there I noticed that many shops catered to women based the gender roles assigned by society. Fore example, City’s Life Style shop catered to women since it sells accessories, make up, and household accessories, where it tends to be the responsibility of women to decorate their houses. The Baby Shop also caters to women, since its also the responsibility of most women to take care of their children and buy for them what they need. Shops like Splash and Shoe Mart cater for both men and women. However, they tend to place female products closer to the main door, and they also assign more space for them, which encourage women more than men to shop for these items.
When I went up I found the Home Center that sells household furniture and accessories. In this particular shop I noticed more female-male couples coming in, in comparison to the City’s life Style shop, which also sells household accessories. This may be due to the fact that adult males tend to have some responsibility when it comes to shopping for expensive products like houses, house furniture, and cars. The reason for this might be that most men make more money and are responsible of household expenditure to keep their power at home. However, overall women tend to shop more than men, and some people say that women tend to be even better when it comes to shopping.
On that same floor, there is a Fun City, where moms, or parents take their kids to play. The existence of the Fun City in the shopping mall represents a significant motivation for moms to come and shop there as well. Moms or parents can send their kids with their maid to the Fun City to play, and they go to do their shopping without the distractions from their kids, which encourages more women to come for shopping.
Well, for the older generations it’s déjà vu. The teenagers and young adults today never watched 90210, V and Hawaii Five-O. Of course, I am talking about the original versions of these television shows which aired in the late 20th Century. It seems to audiences that Hollywood has lost it- or has it? After all, the media corporations are in the money making business, and what better way to make money than to retell old and highly successful classics? With the exception of Melrose Place which miserably failed due to the bad acting and Bionic Woman which only lasted a season. However, in Bionic Woman’s defense, the writers' strike was going on at the time and caused the series to go on a short hiatus.
As well as rehashing old classics, Hollywood is bringing in successful UK based television shows such as The Office, American Idol (known as Pop Idol in the UK), Skins and many more. As previously stated, Hollywood has not lost “it”. Media firms need to minimize risk. To make money, they have to go with what they know and adhere to the rules of the game. There are multiple ways to minimize risk, like using well known actors and following genre conventions.
As you probably guessed already, another method which is becoming somewhat of a trend is the remaking of old hits and the adoption of successful television shows from abroad. Basically, remaking pop culture hits- popular culture here is defined as culture that is well liked and which is demonstrated through measurable commercial success.
In the case of bringing back the old classics, the target audience is not only the young generation such as the teenagers and young adults, but also the older ones. This is because they have already watched the original versions of the shows and are curious to know how the new ones are. Some of the new versions even feature story lines from the old version to make the audiences of the original versions keep watching.
Appealing to international audiences is another thing that the media companies want to do- this is part of the secondary market. When bringing in television shows from abroad, appealing to the international audience is not as hard anymore because the audiences abroad, from which the television show is originally based in, would simply watch the show out of sheer curiosity.
With the recreation of television shows, many elements have stayed the same- like the type of car the main character uses in Hawaii Five-O. However, things such as cell phones and laptops an other products, which perhaps were not used back then are being integrated into the shows to promote products (product placement) and this is producing a materialistic culture in the United States and it is promoting consumerism.
The recreation of television shows is sociologically intriguing because the cultures twenty, thirty or forty years ago and those abroad are significantly different to those currently in the United States. It would be interesting to study the different audiences and see how one television show affects different kinds of audiences and cultures.
My earlier blog about consumerism and materialism reflects the effect of the culture industry in designing products that make us consume more and more, transforming us into mindless consumers of popular culture and cultural products produced by culture industries...
However there is another dimension of consumerism that I would like to explore further. I know a special kind of consumer, the person you usually find first in line to purchase the new phone, the new ipod, the new laptop, the new “gadget” and the latest technology or model of whatever it is the culture industry is selling us. Meg is a Texas student in the petroleum engineering major. He is also what Grazian refers to as an “early adopter”, an early consumer of a given company product or technology. As far as early adopters are concerned, he is definitely a record breaker. I’ve known him for 3 years, and whenever I buy something new, he always has something newer. He always makes what I own look out of date. My phone is always at least three generations behind his, and my other entertainment gadgets like my ipod are definitely not the “best” option according to him.
If you aren’t an early adopter, I’m sure you know one. Yes I’m talking about the person who can’t wait to show you their new special edition ipod, their new laptop with new features, their new camera, and their new high-tech gadget that can do something so cool – way cooler than what you already own. If the new products are not yet available in stores for you to line up in a cue, he would be the first to purchase it online before it is available for sale locally.
Early adopters are not just geeky consumers as many may think. Their influence on brand success, and impact on society and the consumerist culture can be significant. Potential consumers often seek early adopters’ advice, as they are way ahead in terms of expertise and knowledge on the particular product or innovation. Early adopters would have had more time being acquainted with the product than potential adopters and so would have acquired better understanding of its functions, uses and features. It is then likely that I ask my friend Meg whether I should purchase a certain piece of technology or gadget. Knowing that he would already have that particular item or replaced it about three times he would be a good source for advice and information. Even though I might look up a lot of reviews and information online, the “word-of-mouth” aspect of the interaction theory could be more effective in terms of convincing me to buy a given product. As this analysis on early adopters states, early adopters may “serve as a role model for many other members of a social system”. Early adopters then become somewhat respected by their peers and exemplify a way of using and purchasing products introduced by companies.
When I ask Meg for advice on a given gadget or piece of technology, his role is then to lower my uncertainty of purchasing it and to provide me with a vicarious hands-on experience through his own. His experience may not always be the best. Early adopters can face downfalls, but these negative experiences can serve the benefit of others.
Meg is not an online review or brochure, but someone who is not just trying to sell me a product. Hence, it is only natural that his peers and myself look to him for advice on new products. The effect a “Meg” would bring on any given society is more or less equal. We look to these early adopters for hopes of a successful purchase. It is always rewarding when you invest in something that proves to be suitable and worthwhile. So can early adopters transform us into savvy consumers?
It is not surprising that I no longer have room in my closets, drawers, and other wardrobe space. I have the constant urge to shop, always desiring new, trendy “latest season’s” fashions. My room is cluttered with a superfluous collection of clothes, accessories, shoes, bags and other newly purchased items that still have their tags on. I am consistently buying new items of clothing, despite the complete and utter absence of necessity. As the photos suggest, I am indeed subject to a social order known as consumerism.
Looking at consumerism through a sociological lens, Grazian mentions that consumerism creates a cultural hegemony that is part of popular culture as a process of social control. Media and culture industries combined, foster these systematic false needs in consumers for them to want to buy new goods and in larger amounts.
While Grazian mentions the average adult in America buys 48 pieces of clothing items a year, the numbers may be even higher in this society. Some people here go shopping every weekend, may be even everyday. Do we need to shop that often? And do we really need the items we purchase? Why do ladies anticipate the latest fashions, trendiest looks, and ‘hot’ off the runway apparel? Who created this constant feeling of enthusiasm and rejuvenating excitement for these cultural products? Why do sales and promotions “easily represent what feels like a missed opportunity for fulfillment” and why does every purchase bring “with it a kind of relief however ephemeral”, (Grazian, p.61).
Grazian points out, it may have a lot to do with the culture industries that mass produce them, as well as the mass media in general that advertises these products. An eye-opening project called “The Story of Stuff” offers an extensive critical study on the consumerist American society, and the effects of consumerism on the environment and its impact on society as a whole. We’ve all heard the phrases “Must-haves” and “Must buys” and “Must” whatever it is to make us buy something. Are any of these deemed “Must purchases” really essential? Well, even if they aren’t, we’re buying them! According to the video below, in the U.S people are subjected to around 3,000 advertisements a day, which is compared to 50 years ago, more than people in America saw in a lifetime.
So what are the mass media and Ads really doing? They’re basically telling us our hair’s wrong, our clothes are ugly, our skin is blotchy, our phone’s useless and our lifestyles need makeovers. They make us unsatisfied with ourselves. Then after feeling dissatisfied, we move to these products in order to fill that emptiness, that bubble of dissatisfaction that is created. This is what Grazian calls a “capitalist industry with exploitive motives”. We’re all part of one massive business. It’s all about making money ladies and gentlemen. Not satisfying real needs like creativity, happiness and freedom. Mass media and mass marketing is the key. Generally people want to identify with a group and marketing sells lifestyle choices. They use the same tactics as religion. If you don’t do A, you won’t get B. Most people don’t have the courage to be unique. Cleverly, the people that market mass-produced “cultural products”, clothing and accessories etc. entice people by telling them if you wear this item it will set you apart and they will gain status when really the consumer pays to be a walking billboard. It’s obvious if you look around that the clothing presents a sort of false ideal because most people wear things that aren’t necessarily flattering to their figures. You cannot look like Angelina Jolie by wearing the same clothes. Now the consumer goes a step further into body modification - and mass media then advertises plastic surgery.
So they tell you to get your plastic card, and buy more plastic stuff to set yourself apart. Stuff mass-produced, manufactured in third-world nations for a rate of a dime-a-dozen. But the crafty schemes of culture industries, are not entirely dominating the masses. Even though my closets are crammed (maybe not to such an extreme) a light always shines when cultural innovation, and creativity, and real art does emerge despite the manipulative strategies of culture industries producing what we call “popular culture”.
