I love books on business and business philosophy. After I read the autobiography of one of the top businessmen in the past few decades, Jack Welch (GE), I was excited to read a negative take on business. I picked up "Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole" by Benjamin Barber.
Before I give my thoughts, you can understand the book much more by watching his appearance on the Colbert Report.
5 comments:
This is something I agree with you and your assessment wholeheartedly.
Just take responsibility for yourselves (That's my favorite phrase I give to my students, by the way...my kids mimic it everytime I say it). But that's it. Simply, just be respsonsible.
And you pointed it out wonderfully in this essay...
"But I blame the family that is not taking the time to communicate, cook regular dinners, or exercise-not the corporation."
"But I think people need to exercise more personal responsibility...The blame should go to the individuals (and to some extent the banks for making bad investments) but not the marketers for trying to create desire for their products."
"I place the blame, however, on the people with the poor spending habits or superficial attitudes because they allowed themselves to be "consumed".
Remember the movie 'Rounders'? "If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker." That's the business world we live in, to me, in a nutshell. We aren't in the era of mom-and-pop stores anymore where the clerks and store owners know your name by heart. And I'm fine with that. If you can't be responsible with yourself and with your money, than you don't deserve to have it. Good for those companies smart enough to take a sucker's money.
I agree with you both that personal responsibility is important. In the end, it all comes down to individual choice. If I get a credit card, and I spend more than I make, that's my fault.
But I don't think that completely absolves corporations/marketers from any responsibility for their actions. And I don't like Adam's line of "just doing their job." Some marketing practices (like preadatory lending) are wrong. I agree that the consumer shouldn't be accepting the loans, but the bank pushing the bad loans (as well as the marketer selling the loans) has to take some responsibility as well.
If I'm walking down the street and some shady marketer starts trying to sell me a line of bullshit, I agree that I shouldn't be buying the bullshit. But the marketer shouldn't be selling the bullshit either.
That being said, bottled water companies are mostly bullshit. I have to agree with the author on that one. And what about Evian's "philanthropic" endeavors? First of all, it's not philanthropy, it's PR. Second, if the government would let them, bottled water companies would drain the Great Lakes if it would increase profits. Don't feed me some line from their website about "sustainable water management." A corporation's only goal is profit. That is the one and only goal. All the rest is anciallary.
Another problem is that the problem seeps into the economy at large. It's fine if you want to say that if consumers are stupid enough to be fooled, they deserve to lose their money.
But if enough people are fooled, it starts to impact the smart people who were not fooled. That's the main problem with the libertarian ideal of complete personal responsibility: it omits the fact that people are interconnected. You can make all the right choices....but if enough people make the wrong ones, you will still end up getting screwed over.
I don't understand predatory lending very well, but people HAVE to take responsibility by understanding the commitments they are signing. I do agree, though, that the lenders noses aren't clean. And you are right that everyone suffers when the banking industry collapses due to bad loan investments. That's why I think those companies need to accept responsibility and deal with having more government oversight in exchange for the bailout money.
I guess I didn't do a good enough job of stating my division between marketers and companies because I don't have as much trust in corporations as it may sound. Oversight is definitely necessary - I get very frustrated when I see or hear competitors make claims that aren't true because it is deceiving and damaging to our company.
Marketers are just doing their job by advertising their products and creating a need for themselves in the marketplace and in consumer's mindspace. It can go to far ("Today's sermon is brought to you by Mentos- the freshmaker!") but I don't think it is for the most part. I think that marketing can only "corrupt children" if the parents spoil them by giving into their demands. And marketing to our most basic human nature isn't "infantilizing adults".
Businesses can do good things, even though it is often for just PR purposes.
PR charity is definitely better than no charity at all.
And I have to admit that I have no idea what "infantilizing adults" means. Does it just mean treating adults like children? If so, then I agree that it is outright wrong to say that all marketing is "infantilizing." (except for beer commercials...)
I do understand that there is a division between the corporation and the marketers, but I just find it hard to see the difference sometimes. That's not an indictment on the system, it's just my (admittedly skewed) perception of the world.
I would have a very difficult time "creating a need in the consumer's mindspace" for just about any product. Not that it is necessarily wrong, just that I can't do it, and have a hard time understanding anyone else that can.
Post a Comment