The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Branded
No, not a short story (god save us from hackneyed Will Self-alikes banging out sub-standard English homework pieces) or a poem. Nope, this is a lengthy musing on the world.
And to prevent the defensive “Who are you to say?” outcries, needless to say what follows is my perception, my beliefs and my outlooks. As such, it casts no aspersions on you, dear reader, nor does it leave the door open for “You’re wrong” because to me, my views aren’t.
So, with that proviso and weary header –
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Something desperately plastic and Stepford-Wife about today’s culture. Take a look around you: a homogenised one-size-fits-all world that promises uniqueness yet strives to put you into an easy-to-sell-to persona.
It pervades the normal high-street. What used to be a thriving community, a centre of activity and social gathering place has been turned into a scene akin to “Dawn of The Dead” with windswept, empty precincts and the occasional fluttering newspaper swirling outside Poundland/Top Shop/Ratners/Mobile Phone Inc.
Except lately there has been some life re-appearing in High Streets, but it’s become something far more sinister than shuffling hordes of undead seeking brains to snack upon.
Where once were local butchers, cafes, bookstores, small record stores run by people that knew what you were talking about and other recognisable stores now squat vast, multi-national conglomerates all striving to appear incongruous and “Hey there, come on in and be happy and friendly”.
Doesn’t matter if you live in Essex, Bordeaux or Utah – these stores are all the same.
Starbucks/Gap/Tower Records/Borders/McDonalds/Blockbuster/Pizza Hut/Nike Town/Warner Bros/Wal-Mart (except they still call themselves Asda here in the UK because of the rising anti-Wal Mart feeling in the US).
Generic stores that have swallowed the world whole and offer up identikit “experiences” and call their staff “partners” in an attempt to appear friendly, local stores helping you to live you life in a stress-free way.
The past 10-15 years have seen the world become smaller and the invention of something called the Internet that has “brought us together” apparently. But with that has come the proliferation of the same old stores the world over and the eradication of any sense of local identity.
Sainsbury and Tesco here did the same, carpet-bombing areas with stores to obliterate independent operators. Harlow has 3 Tesco, a Sainsbury and an Asda. Now it’s a given that if you go do your food shopping, it will be in one of those mega-stores. You still have local corner stores, but because of the cheap prices in these giants, they are forced to charge more because of loss of business, and therefore people dislike paying more and head straight towards the majors. It’s a vicious circle.
Oh, oh – except now you can “Tesco Local”. An oxymoron if ever there was one.
A massive supermarket putting imitation versions of the exact same stores they drove out of business, except with half the choice and generic brands at knock-down prices.
These big players can afford to charge bottom rate and absorb any operating losses due to the sheer size and number. It’s the same as Microsoft losing x number of millions a week, they can afford it so who cares?
The aim isn’t to make a store profitable, it’s to completely saturate an area and remove the choice. And once choice has been killed, prices can then be raised.
Blockbuster does exactly the same, as does Starbucks.
They simply open more and more stores until the competition has been forced out, leaving you with no choice.
There used to be a local video shop in Harlow, it was fantastic and I used it for over 15 years. The staff were knowledgeable, friendly and it was an excellent place to find out about movies you’d never heard of before, just ask the guy.
And then Blockbuster opened about 30 seconds away. 3 months before it opened, they canvassed every home in Harlow and took membership, offering you free rentals if you signed up before the opening. “No thanks” was my reply.
And the local video store closed within the year. So now I can go choose from 45 copies of Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2, but the 2 copies of Dark Water are always out and the staff are simply there because it’s a job, not because they know/love film – unlike the old place that was forced to close.
Why?
Why did people switch from their local store to the blue & yellow plastic, slack-jawed megaplex offering of Blockbuster?
It’s the tactic of market saturation plus brand recognition.
It doesn’t matter that they now charge almost £4 to rent or that the selection is ass-awful, it’s ease and brand familiarity.
And that’s the same with Starbucks/Gap etc. It doesn’t matter that they offer wan, lifeless products (personally), but because they know the name.
Branding. Getting your company lodged in our psyche.
The ultimate goal of business/marketing/advertising. To have somebody equate your company/brand with their desire.
It’s not the product that is important, it’s the brand.
Coke is the world’s number one soft-drink.
Its logo is recognisable in every single country. They don’t even need to put the name, just the red & white swirl is enough to tell you. Yet they still spend billions in advertising every year. Why? There’s no need to when you have world market dominance. It’s not to sell more, it’s to reinforce the brand in your mind.
And it’s not about the product, it’s about “Coke”. You can buy merchandise – ranging from jackets to fridge magnets. They are selling the brand to you, not the drink.
Blockbuster do the same.
It’s not about selling movies, it’s about selling you the Blockbuster brand. How does the commercial go? “Make it a Blockbuster evening”. They’re blatantly telling you to turn your evening into a celebration of the company. You can now buy beer/soft drinks/dvd players/sound systems instore, everything you could possibly want to go with your big studio movie you can get from this one store. No need to visit anywhere else, be loyal to Blockbuster and be a happy consumer.
McDonalds is another company that doesn’t need to advertise to gain more business, yet their marketing budget is akin to the national economy of a small country.
It’s all about reinforcing the brand, making sure when you think “I want a mechanically separated, water-filled patty of barely-present meat I want a McDonalds”.
Anyone here remember their old slogan? That went beyond anything I’ve seen, it was bordering on “They Live” style of marketing. Printed on the take-away bags/drink containers etc? “Enjoy More”. Now if that doesn’t make you think “Hang on a minute, what kind of Big Brother world is this” then you’ve been owned hook line and sinker by these marketing bods. “Enjoy More” – a straight out order to you, the vacant consumer to shut up and be happy with your sub-standard food snack.
Nike.
I’m not going to go into their sweat-shop production methods here, that’s for another time. But as an example of branding, they are 100% the leaders.
They don’t even make a product anymore. They closed their factories down and use contractors in other countries. They don’t design shoes, they stopped doing that years ago. They moved away from the costly burden of actually making a product, and instead concentrated on selling Nike as a brand.
The adverts with sporting heroes talking about “the spirit of excellence” etc, the sponsorship of events. It all goes to promoting Nike the brand, not any product.
My personal favourite is Tommy Hilfigger.
Did you know he is not a designer? He’s never once been responsible for designing a single piece of clothing. He simply buys contract clothing and puts his name on.
Yet he’s one of the biggest, must-have names in the “bling-bling” world of hip-hop.
He did a very clever thing, he marketed his gear towards inner city blacks. Employed street-teamers to wear his gear and promote it at street level. The kids would get into it, nobody ever concentrated on them before as a target demographic. Consequently the hip-hop stars wore it, and then white suburban Middle America dutifully followed. In much the same way that you see these clueless, stupid white English kids in massive baggy jeans with no belt and the waist down by their thighs (just as trivia, this fashion started because of prison culture. Belts would be removed to prevent hanging yourself, so the trousers would subsequently hang loose. Style adopted in the ghetto and followed on by white middle-class teens).
Hilfigger doesn’t manufacture any products, there isn’t anything he has to make. He simply sticks his brand on somebody else’s work and you buy it.
And where branding really has worked, has seeped into the culture’s awareness (any where I vent my spleen) is the willingness of you, the individual, to be willing to use yourself as a billboard.
A walking, talking advertising space for that brand.
And you pay for the privilege.
You cannot move without seeing people wearing branded clothing. Be it a hat with the ubiquitous Nike “Swoosh” or any other number of brands.
Designer label clothes in the 80s, the height of vulgarity for anyone too young to remember yuppies, Thatcherism, filofaxes etc kept, surprisingly for the era, a modest restraint on branding.
A small Lacoste crocodile on the front was about as classy as it got (times change).
But today, clothing has become a full-on brand advertising feature. The brand name/logo has taken centre stage to the point where it can cover the front/back completely (or in the case of Hilfigger, all down the arms and legs as well).
And I don’t understand why you do this. I simply cannot comprehend why you would choose to pay for the opportunity to advertise these brands for the companies. Are you a billboard? No, but you couldn’t tell it from 90% of people walking around these identikit world-same stores, all consuming in happy ignorance.
It’s Starbucks for your morning coffee fix, shopping at Gap in your lunch hour, then to Blockbuster for “the experience”. Weekends spent shuffling around shopping centres looking for more branded goods to wear from world-wide stores that don’t even produce a product anymore.
It doesn’t make sense to me why you would do this, really it doesn’t.
And for those people that like to pretend they are cynical and “yeah man, the media is like, soooo cliché”? You can buy t-shirts with Che Guevara on the front, or the communist star, or retro Atari t-shirts.
Sure it’s ironic fashion, but it’s still a brand co-opting whatever “cool” passes these days and using it to sell to you, getting you to parade around as an advertising space.
Why would a person subsume their identity and worth as a person, and choose to be a walking talking brand extension? Are people really that empty?
Unfortunately, the more I look around, the more I tend to think “yes, they are”.
16 million people all watching Eastenders. More people voting for Pop Idol than turned out to vote.
Think about that, you took more time deciding who would have a 15 minute karaoke career than you spent deciding who would run your country for you.
That’s frightening.
It would appear that everybody wants to eat the same (bad) food, wear the same branded clothes, watch the same vacouos television programmes and listen to the same plastic pop music.
A world composed of countries where the only difference is the language spoken and the weather with everybody shopping in the same place, wearing the same clothing and thinking the same thing.
That’s not a world I like the sound of.
McDonalds used to have “ENJOY MORE” stamped all over their waste, and then their marketing people realised that people weren’t, in fact, enjoying more and hey, maybe that idea seemed a tad “Shut up, be happy, buy/eat”. So they spend millions coming up with a new catchy slogan designed to appeal to the children/teens that make up a majority of their customers: “i’m lovin’ it”.
Nice and non-instructional, written in teen friendly lower-case txt speak style to indicate that yes, McDonalds is a car-crash of fat & salt but y’know, they love you really.
i’m loving it?
No I’m not, but it would appear that I’m in the minority.
No, not a short story (god save us from hackneyed Will Self-alikes banging out sub-standard English homework pieces) or a poem. Nope, this is a lengthy musing on the world.
And to prevent the defensive “Who are you to say?” outcries, needless to say what follows is my perception, my beliefs and my outlooks. As such, it casts no aspersions on you, dear reader, nor does it leave the door open for “You’re wrong” because to me, my views aren’t.
So, with that proviso and weary header –
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Something desperately plastic and Stepford-Wife about today’s culture. Take a look around you: a homogenised one-size-fits-all world that promises uniqueness yet strives to put you into an easy-to-sell-to persona.
It pervades the normal high-street. What used to be a thriving community, a centre of activity and social gathering place has been turned into a scene akin to “Dawn of The Dead” with windswept, empty precincts and the occasional fluttering newspaper swirling outside Poundland/Top Shop/Ratners/Mobile Phone Inc.
Except lately there has been some life re-appearing in High Streets, but it’s become something far more sinister than shuffling hordes of undead seeking brains to snack upon.
Where once were local butchers, cafes, bookstores, small record stores run by people that knew what you were talking about and other recognisable stores now squat vast, multi-national conglomerates all striving to appear incongruous and “Hey there, come on in and be happy and friendly”.
Doesn’t matter if you live in Essex, Bordeaux or Utah – these stores are all the same.
Starbucks/Gap/Tower Records/Borders/McDonalds/Blockbuster/Pizza Hut/Nike Town/Warner Bros/Wal-Mart (except they still call themselves Asda here in the UK because of the rising anti-Wal Mart feeling in the US).
Generic stores that have swallowed the world whole and offer up identikit “experiences” and call their staff “partners” in an attempt to appear friendly, local stores helping you to live you life in a stress-free way.
The past 10-15 years have seen the world become smaller and the invention of something called the Internet that has “brought us together” apparently. But with that has come the proliferation of the same old stores the world over and the eradication of any sense of local identity.
Sainsbury and Tesco here did the same, carpet-bombing areas with stores to obliterate independent operators. Harlow has 3 Tesco, a Sainsbury and an Asda. Now it’s a given that if you go do your food shopping, it will be in one of those mega-stores. You still have local corner stores, but because of the cheap prices in these giants, they are forced to charge more because of loss of business, and therefore people dislike paying more and head straight towards the majors. It’s a vicious circle.
Oh, oh – except now you can “Tesco Local”. An oxymoron if ever there was one.
A massive supermarket putting imitation versions of the exact same stores they drove out of business, except with half the choice and generic brands at knock-down prices.
These big players can afford to charge bottom rate and absorb any operating losses due to the sheer size and number. It’s the same as Microsoft losing x number of millions a week, they can afford it so who cares?
The aim isn’t to make a store profitable, it’s to completely saturate an area and remove the choice. And once choice has been killed, prices can then be raised.
Blockbuster does exactly the same, as does Starbucks.
They simply open more and more stores until the competition has been forced out, leaving you with no choice.
There used to be a local video shop in Harlow, it was fantastic and I used it for over 15 years. The staff were knowledgeable, friendly and it was an excellent place to find out about movies you’d never heard of before, just ask the guy.
And then Blockbuster opened about 30 seconds away. 3 months before it opened, they canvassed every home in Harlow and took membership, offering you free rentals if you signed up before the opening. “No thanks” was my reply.
And the local video store closed within the year. So now I can go choose from 45 copies of Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2, but the 2 copies of Dark Water are always out and the staff are simply there because it’s a job, not because they know/love film – unlike the old place that was forced to close.
Why?
Why did people switch from their local store to the blue & yellow plastic, slack-jawed megaplex offering of Blockbuster?
It’s the tactic of market saturation plus brand recognition.
It doesn’t matter that they now charge almost £4 to rent or that the selection is ass-awful, it’s ease and brand familiarity.
And that’s the same with Starbucks/Gap etc. It doesn’t matter that they offer wan, lifeless products (personally), but because they know the name.
Branding. Getting your company lodged in our psyche.
The ultimate goal of business/marketing/advertising. To have somebody equate your company/brand with their desire.
It’s not the product that is important, it’s the brand.
Coke is the world’s number one soft-drink.
Its logo is recognisable in every single country. They don’t even need to put the name, just the red & white swirl is enough to tell you. Yet they still spend billions in advertising every year. Why? There’s no need to when you have world market dominance. It’s not to sell more, it’s to reinforce the brand in your mind.
And it’s not about the product, it’s about “Coke”. You can buy merchandise – ranging from jackets to fridge magnets. They are selling the brand to you, not the drink.
Blockbuster do the same.
It’s not about selling movies, it’s about selling you the Blockbuster brand. How does the commercial go? “Make it a Blockbuster evening”. They’re blatantly telling you to turn your evening into a celebration of the company. You can now buy beer/soft drinks/dvd players/sound systems instore, everything you could possibly want to go with your big studio movie you can get from this one store. No need to visit anywhere else, be loyal to Blockbuster and be a happy consumer.
McDonalds is another company that doesn’t need to advertise to gain more business, yet their marketing budget is akin to the national economy of a small country.
It’s all about reinforcing the brand, making sure when you think “I want a mechanically separated, water-filled patty of barely-present meat I want a McDonalds”.
Anyone here remember their old slogan? That went beyond anything I’ve seen, it was bordering on “They Live” style of marketing. Printed on the take-away bags/drink containers etc? “Enjoy More”. Now if that doesn’t make you think “Hang on a minute, what kind of Big Brother world is this” then you’ve been owned hook line and sinker by these marketing bods. “Enjoy More” – a straight out order to you, the vacant consumer to shut up and be happy with your sub-standard food snack.
Nike.
I’m not going to go into their sweat-shop production methods here, that’s for another time. But as an example of branding, they are 100% the leaders.
They don’t even make a product anymore. They closed their factories down and use contractors in other countries. They don’t design shoes, they stopped doing that years ago. They moved away from the costly burden of actually making a product, and instead concentrated on selling Nike as a brand.
The adverts with sporting heroes talking about “the spirit of excellence” etc, the sponsorship of events. It all goes to promoting Nike the brand, not any product.
My personal favourite is Tommy Hilfigger.
Did you know he is not a designer? He’s never once been responsible for designing a single piece of clothing. He simply buys contract clothing and puts his name on.
Yet he’s one of the biggest, must-have names in the “bling-bling” world of hip-hop.
He did a very clever thing, he marketed his gear towards inner city blacks. Employed street-teamers to wear his gear and promote it at street level. The kids would get into it, nobody ever concentrated on them before as a target demographic. Consequently the hip-hop stars wore it, and then white suburban Middle America dutifully followed. In much the same way that you see these clueless, stupid white English kids in massive baggy jeans with no belt and the waist down by their thighs (just as trivia, this fashion started because of prison culture. Belts would be removed to prevent hanging yourself, so the trousers would subsequently hang loose. Style adopted in the ghetto and followed on by white middle-class teens).
Hilfigger doesn’t manufacture any products, there isn’t anything he has to make. He simply sticks his brand on somebody else’s work and you buy it.
And where branding really has worked, has seeped into the culture’s awareness (any where I vent my spleen) is the willingness of you, the individual, to be willing to use yourself as a billboard.
A walking, talking advertising space for that brand.
And you pay for the privilege.
You cannot move without seeing people wearing branded clothing. Be it a hat with the ubiquitous Nike “Swoosh” or any other number of brands.
Designer label clothes in the 80s, the height of vulgarity for anyone too young to remember yuppies, Thatcherism, filofaxes etc kept, surprisingly for the era, a modest restraint on branding.
A small Lacoste crocodile on the front was about as classy as it got (times change).
But today, clothing has become a full-on brand advertising feature. The brand name/logo has taken centre stage to the point where it can cover the front/back completely (or in the case of Hilfigger, all down the arms and legs as well).
And I don’t understand why you do this. I simply cannot comprehend why you would choose to pay for the opportunity to advertise these brands for the companies. Are you a billboard? No, but you couldn’t tell it from 90% of people walking around these identikit world-same stores, all consuming in happy ignorance.
It’s Starbucks for your morning coffee fix, shopping at Gap in your lunch hour, then to Blockbuster for “the experience”. Weekends spent shuffling around shopping centres looking for more branded goods to wear from world-wide stores that don’t even produce a product anymore.
It doesn’t make sense to me why you would do this, really it doesn’t.
And for those people that like to pretend they are cynical and “yeah man, the media is like, soooo cliché”? You can buy t-shirts with Che Guevara on the front, or the communist star, or retro Atari t-shirts.
Sure it’s ironic fashion, but it’s still a brand co-opting whatever “cool” passes these days and using it to sell to you, getting you to parade around as an advertising space.
Why would a person subsume their identity and worth as a person, and choose to be a walking talking brand extension? Are people really that empty?
Unfortunately, the more I look around, the more I tend to think “yes, they are”.
16 million people all watching Eastenders. More people voting for Pop Idol than turned out to vote.
Think about that, you took more time deciding who would have a 15 minute karaoke career than you spent deciding who would run your country for you.
That’s frightening.
It would appear that everybody wants to eat the same (bad) food, wear the same branded clothes, watch the same vacouos television programmes and listen to the same plastic pop music.
A world composed of countries where the only difference is the language spoken and the weather with everybody shopping in the same place, wearing the same clothing and thinking the same thing.
That’s not a world I like the sound of.
McDonalds used to have “ENJOY MORE” stamped all over their waste, and then their marketing people realised that people weren’t, in fact, enjoying more and hey, maybe that idea seemed a tad “Shut up, be happy, buy/eat”. So they spend millions coming up with a new catchy slogan designed to appeal to the children/teens that make up a majority of their customers: “i’m lovin’ it”.
Nice and non-instructional, written in teen friendly lower-case txt speak style to indicate that yes, McDonalds is a car-crash of fat & salt but y’know, they love you really.
i’m loving it?
No I’m not, but it would appear that I’m in the minority.
Page:
Well, that minority includes me, I'm not ashamed-to-be-proud to say.
It seems there is a massive central paradox in almost every area of society today, from girls wanting to be older then younger, massive conformation to the ideal of an individual, , healthy McDonalds and as you say, 'Local Tesco'. The two thing seem to co-exist happily, almost in a Doublethink type of way. Was it Doublethink? I think so. The saddest thing I think I've ever seen in terms of our supposedly indiviudal society was in Exeter recently. There were, for some inexplicalbe reason, literally hundereds of people my age about, just moping about, doing apparantly nothing. Plastered in brands, eating from the local fast food and nattering about anything inane and meaningless. It was almost a vision from a nightmare world of 'perfect market gain'.
They were all protesting their right to individuality by looking exactly the same as the next clueless mong sitting next to them, gnawing on a foccia-bread 'Maccy Ds' burger.
It seems there is a massive central paradox in almost every area of society today, from girls wanting to be older then younger, massive conformation to the ideal of an individual, , healthy McDonalds and as you say, 'Local Tesco'. The two thing seem to co-exist happily, almost in a Doublethink type of way. Was it Doublethink? I think so. The saddest thing I think I've ever seen in terms of our supposedly indiviudal society was in Exeter recently. There were, for some inexplicalbe reason, literally hundereds of people my age about, just moping about, doing apparantly nothing. Plastered in brands, eating from the local fast food and nattering about anything inane and meaningless. It was almost a vision from a nightmare world of 'perfect market gain'.
They were all protesting their right to individuality by looking exactly the same as the next clueless mong sitting next to them, gnawing on a foccia-bread 'Maccy Ds' burger.
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> More like typical Light...*sigh* unknown kernel asked for my
> reasoning, I gave it. You went off on one. Little changes here does
> it?
~claps~ Well done Bell; you've just fallen for the same trick you tried to boast in the Xbox forum of pulling yourself. You've responded to a comment that was put there to bait you. Kinda annoying isn't it? Makes you feel nothing but contempt for the person who made it, doesn't it? Just thought you'd like to get a feel of what kind of prat you're making of yourself. And of course, I apologise to the rest of the board for that little sojourn into trolling.
>
> Except the corporations only hold those positions because their goods
> are popular, popular by choice of consumers. In any kind of free
> market economy you will always have certain companies with more power
> than others, it's basic economics. Same with legislation, it only
> exists because there is little demand for change, and again, in any
> free society there will never be a status quo legislation wise, there
> will always be someone who wants a law changing or altering.
Which is one perspective. One I disagree with as it happens. But that's by the by; you're entitled to your opinion.
>
> More like typical Light...*sigh* unknown kernel asked for my
> reasoning, I gave it. You went off on one. Little changes here does
> it?
~claps~ Well done Bell; you've just fallen for the same trick you tried to boast in the Xbox forum of pulling yourself. You've responded to a comment that was put there to bait you. Kinda annoying isn't it? Makes you feel nothing but contempt for the person who made it, doesn't it? Just thought you'd like to get a feel of what kind of prat you're making of yourself. And of course, I apologise to the rest of the board for that little sojourn into trolling.
>
> Except the corporations only hold those positions because their goods
> are popular, popular by choice of consumers. In any kind of free
> market economy you will always have certain companies with more power
> than others, it's basic economics. Same with legislation, it only
> exists because there is little demand for change, and again, in any
> free society there will never be a status quo legislation wise, there
> will always be someone who wants a law changing or altering.
Which is one perspective. One I disagree with as it happens. But that's by the by; you're entitled to your opinion.
Light wrote:
> Heh. Typical Bell; "This is what I think; anything else doesn't
> matter".
More like typical Light...*sigh* unknown kernel asked for my reasoning, I gave it. You went off on one. Little changes here does it?
> Y'know, you actually have a point. Except of course that the truth of
> the matter isn't that it's ALL our responsibility, any more than it's
> all up to corporations to sort out. Corporations do take advantage of
> their market position to eat up more profits, and they do so at the
> expense of that elusive 'humanity' factor. By the same token, we do
> have to take responsibility for our lives to a large degree. A shame
> it's so difficult to do that; many of our decisions on a day to day
> basis are limited by existing legislation.
Except the corporations only hold those positions because their goods are popular, popular by choice of consumers. In any kind of free market economy you will always have certain companies with more power than others, it's basic economics. Same with legislation, it only exists because there is little demand for change, and again, in any free society there will never be a status quo legislation wise, there will always be someone who wants a law changing or altering.
> Heh. Typical Bell; "This is what I think; anything else doesn't
> matter".
More like typical Light...*sigh* unknown kernel asked for my reasoning, I gave it. You went off on one. Little changes here does it?
> Y'know, you actually have a point. Except of course that the truth of
> the matter isn't that it's ALL our responsibility, any more than it's
> all up to corporations to sort out. Corporations do take advantage of
> their market position to eat up more profits, and they do so at the
> expense of that elusive 'humanity' factor. By the same token, we do
> have to take responsibility for our lives to a large degree. A shame
> it's so difficult to do that; many of our decisions on a day to day
> basis are limited by existing legislation.
Except the corporations only hold those positions because their goods are popular, popular by choice of consumers. In any kind of free market economy you will always have certain companies with more power than others, it's basic economics. Same with legislation, it only exists because there is little demand for change, and again, in any free society there will never be a status quo legislation wise, there will always be someone who wants a law changing or altering.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Last time I went into an independant record shop that is EXACTLY what happened. But the owner is a mate who knows what I like and was just pointing some new stock out.
You're right Goaty. It is a shame to think that people can be sold a brand, a lifestyle, anything really if they think it is big and clever. For some, big and clever is burberry caps. For others it is Hilfigger jackets.
As long as celebrities use actual brands, as long as marketing continues, as long as people collectively are stupid then it will continue. More brands will come out and attempt to be cool because to do so brings in lots of money. And the bottom line is that is what life is about to a great many people.
For those who have money and wealth as their main focus in life, who miss out on all the little things that money can't buy, I pity them.
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Last time I went into an independant record shop that is EXACTLY what happened. But the owner is a mate who knows what I like and was just pointing some new stock out.
You're right Goaty. It is a shame to think that people can be sold a brand, a lifestyle, anything really if they think it is big and clever. For some, big and clever is burberry caps. For others it is Hilfigger jackets.
As long as celebrities use actual brands, as long as marketing continues, as long as people collectively are stupid then it will continue. More brands will come out and attempt to be cool because to do so brings in lots of money. And the bottom line is that is what life is about to a great many people.
For those who have money and wealth as their main focus in life, who miss out on all the little things that money can't buy, I pity them.
Yukikaze wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I
> would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
>
> Except that the last time you went in any store that didn't happen.
> You interpreted the adverts and product placements in that way. When
> I go into any store I buy what I want based on what I like or think I
> will like. Now you can argue that no one has that kind of free choice
> anymore after a lifetime of advertising, but if I am happy with what
> I buy in the end then that's irrelevant.
Heh. Typical Bell; "This is what I think; anything else doesn't matter".
>
> To go back to your example, is it, say, HMV's fault, if you buy a DVD
> just because they advertise it in a certain way, or your fault for
> being that easily influenced ? Same for GAP, if you were to make the
> assumption that wearing GAP clothing made you have more friends, then
> is that GAP's fault or yours? I'd argue it was the buyer's. A lot of
> people want to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto
> others, and corporations make a nice faceless inhuman like target for
> that shift of responsibility.
Y'know, you actually have a point. Except of course that the truth of the matter isn't that it's ALL our responsibility, any more than it's all up to corporations to sort out. Corporations do take advantage of their market position to eat up more profits, and they do so at the expense of that elusive 'humanity' factor. By the same token, we do have to take responsibility for our lives to a large degree. A shame it's so difficult to do that; many of our decisions on a day to day basis are limited by existing legislation.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I
> would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
>
> Except that the last time you went in any store that didn't happen.
> You interpreted the adverts and product placements in that way. When
> I go into any store I buy what I want based on what I like or think I
> will like. Now you can argue that no one has that kind of free choice
> anymore after a lifetime of advertising, but if I am happy with what
> I buy in the end then that's irrelevant.
Heh. Typical Bell; "This is what I think; anything else doesn't matter".
>
> To go back to your example, is it, say, HMV's fault, if you buy a DVD
> just because they advertise it in a certain way, or your fault for
> being that easily influenced ? Same for GAP, if you were to make the
> assumption that wearing GAP clothing made you have more friends, then
> is that GAP's fault or yours? I'd argue it was the buyer's. A lot of
> people want to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto
> others, and corporations make a nice faceless inhuman like target for
> that shift of responsibility.
Y'know, you actually have a point. Except of course that the truth of the matter isn't that it's ALL our responsibility, any more than it's all up to corporations to sort out. Corporations do take advantage of their market position to eat up more profits, and they do so at the expense of that elusive 'humanity' factor. By the same token, we do have to take responsibility for our lives to a large degree. A shame it's so difficult to do that; many of our decisions on a day to day basis are limited by existing legislation.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Except that the last time you went in any store that didn't happen. You interpreted the adverts and product placements in that way. When I go into any store I buy what I want based on what I like or think I will like. Now you can argue that no one has that kind of free choice anymore after a lifetime of advertising, but if I am happy with what I buy in the end then that's irrelevant.
To go back to your example, is it, say, HMV's fault, if you buy a DVD just because they advertise it in a certain way, or your fault for being that easily influenced ? Same for GAP, if you were to make the assumption that wearing GAP clothing made you have more friends, then is that GAP's fault or yours? I'd argue it was the buyer's. A lot of people want to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto others, and corporations make a nice faceless inhuman like target for that shift of responsibility.
> I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain
> why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't
> try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would
> pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Except that the last time you went in any store that didn't happen. You interpreted the adverts and product placements in that way. When I go into any store I buy what I want based on what I like or think I will like. Now you can argue that no one has that kind of free choice anymore after a lifetime of advertising, but if I am happy with what I buy in the end then that's irrelevant.
To go back to your example, is it, say, HMV's fault, if you buy a DVD just because they advertise it in a certain way, or your fault for being that easily influenced ? Same for GAP, if you were to make the assumption that wearing GAP clothing made you have more friends, then is that GAP's fault or yours? I'd argue it was the buyer's. A lot of people want to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto others, and corporations make a nice faceless inhuman like target for that shift of responsibility.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering
> "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big
> business
> sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it
> as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one
> day
> being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the
> people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of
> humanity, innit?
>
> Heh, well unless Tony Blair ups the pay scale for teachers
> significantly that puts your theory in shreds...
Uh...would you like to clarify that statement? I ask you to do so as, currently, it has no relevance to what I said. Thanks.
> Light wrote:
> Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering
> "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big
> business
> sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it
> as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one
> day
> being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the
> people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of
> humanity, innit?
>
> Heh, well unless Tony Blair ups the pay scale for teachers
> significantly that puts your theory in shreds...
Uh...would you like to clarify that statement? I ask you to do so as, currently, it has no relevance to what I said. Thanks.
Light wrote:
> Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering
> "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big business
> sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it
> as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one day
> being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the
> people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of
> humanity, innit?
Heh, well unless Tony Blair ups the pay scale for teachers significantly that puts your theory in shreds...
> Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering
> "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big business
> sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it
> as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one day
> being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the
> people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of
> humanity, innit?
Heh, well unless Tony Blair ups the pay scale for teachers significantly that puts your theory in shreds...
Yep, I wasn't suggesting that everyone who has shopped in an HMV was a pawn of capitalist oppression. HMV (or any other entertainment megachain) was just another example of a shop becoming more than a shop and turning into a lifestyle choice.
Interesting fact: it's easier to buy a record bag in my local HMV than it is to buy a record. Why? Because DJs are cool. And DJs use vinyl so vinyl is cool. And if you use vinyl then you will be cool too. But it's easier to just LOOK like you use vinyl. So why not just buy a record bag and keep your lecture notes in it? A record bag with an HMV logo on it? Good lad, now everyone can see that you and HMV are cool and that you both love vinyl.
It's selling a lifestyle.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Having said that it's
> no worse than people who shout the praises of independent retailers
> really, same thing....
I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Interesting fact: it's easier to buy a record bag in my local HMV than it is to buy a record. Why? Because DJs are cool. And DJs use vinyl so vinyl is cool. And if you use vinyl then you will be cool too. But it's easier to just LOOK like you use vinyl. So why not just buy a record bag and keep your lecture notes in it? A record bag with an HMV logo on it? Good lad, now everyone can see that you and HMV are cool and that you both love vinyl.
It's selling a lifestyle.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Having said that it's
> no worse than people who shout the praises of independent retailers
> really, same thing....
I realise that this is an attempt at baiting, but could you explain why? Last time I went into an independent record shop they didn't try to sell me a DVD, or subtly point out how many more women I would pull if I only emblazoned myself with their logo.
Well...at least Bell is sticking to opinions now, rather than trying to state his held-for-the-last-10-minutes 'beliefs' as fact. I have to say, I'm almost impressed; he's finally beginning to learn from his many mistakes. Hats off to you.
Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big business sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one day being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of humanity, innit?
Can't add much to Goaty's initial post really except for muttering "Yeah, exactly". Branding sucks, the growth of big business sucks, and as far as I can tell, the only people who tend to view it as a good thing are the very people who hold out some hope of one day being at the top of the heap, looking down on others. Funny how the people with those hopes tend to be the most inept examples of humanity, innit?
Page: