The idea of abstraction referred to by Sturken and Cartwright, though perhaps valid and backed by proof that I may not be aware of, seems a little outlandish. The definition of abstraction itself may be accurate; however, its application to today’s society seems less appropriate than the book makes it out to be. Personally, I understand their argument, that as willing or unwilling consumers, we are advertised to using various forms of marketing about what “we will have.” However, in my personal experiences and observation, technological changes in everything-ranging from cell phones to video games to computers- will make what we are supposed to have outdated before we even buy it.
When I think about the BMW commercials, which are definitely cool, I see them more as incredibly expensive movies to promote the BMW brand. Perhaps I see them differently from the average consumer, but to me, they neither seem to stand as stand-alone movies or projections into the “future,” unless one simply has the money to purchase one on the spot. Does the commercial make me want to have a BMW? Not exactly, because I used to want a BMW before this commercial and now don’t care about having one too much.
I will argue that as consumers and perhaps because of the increasing use of pervasive advertising in our everyday lives, that consumers continue to look for “what’s next.” By this, I mean that the attention span seems shorter than it used to be. After attending a seminar on money-making, I realized that every 20 or so minutes, the speaker went off topic and rambled off into a story, whether it be about his personal life, body-building, or another topic unrelated to the topic he was to speak about. He soon revealed that he told stories as a way to keep our attention, because the average person has an attention span of about 20 minutes. As consumers, I think we are beginning to get bored more easily than ever before, because of the rapid pace of technological change, the inevitable and increasingly unavoidable pervasiveness of both web and non-web advertising, and the changing nature of information mediums and learning.
I agree with what historian T.J. Jackson calls the “therapeutic ethos,” though not to the extent that the book describes it to be. I have personally seen the proof that Protestant work ethic, civic responsibility, and self denial has been replaced with concerns for spending and satisfaction. I do not want to overstate the current situation, however, as many are still concerned with both earning and saving money. I would argue that with the constant advent of new developments and advancements in goods such as Ipods and newer Ipods and new services such as Laser Eye Surgery and Lyposuction, that if people can afford them, they will most likely spend their money on it if should they have a relatively valid reason. Interestingly, with my friends, I see the difference in this trend between those in relative poverty and those in the middle-class. For those in more poverty, the degree of spending and freedom of spending is restricted more to necessities. However, this disparity in wealth cannot easily be observed at first glance.
With regard to commodity fetishism, I personally find it quite amusing and humorous, rather than effective in manufacturing my desire to go out and purchase products. Though I understand the connotations and ideas marketers aim to promote- namely, mysticism, wealth, class status, tradition, “cool-ness,” among countless other things, it just seems silly and overdone at times. In many of the commercials nowadays, other attractive devices are thrown together with a product, almost at random at times, and sometimes, at the point of being completely random.
No comments:
Post a Comment