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.
His writing is very dense and he comes across as elitist and arrogant, but he does make a few good points. His arguments trail off on many tangents; I think he wanted to show off how many philosophers he could reference. It was hard for me to keep focused, so I rushed through skimming the rest of the book. Which is ironic since the first passage I came to argued that we want things to be "easy" with instant gratification rather than taking the time to appreciate things.
For example, when bashing fast food, he argues:
"But dining is about sociability, eating as ritual and food as symbol, with the dining table as a kind of secular altar to the family home and hearth. Today, the TV or the computer screen have taken over the ritual function of the household altar, and eating is solitary and passive."
Again, the irony is that I ate McDonalds for lunch and I am discussing this on a computer instead of over a phone call or in person. I agree with his romantic outlook on socializing; we should only use fast food in moderation not only for the health benefits, but because it makes us lazy and takes away from the important socializing that occurs at a family dinner table. But I blame the family that is not taking the time to communicate, cook regular dinners, or exercise - not the corporation.
The next part I stopped on was extremely relevant for the current economic crisis. He argues that the "infantilist ethos" conditions Americans to spend more and more and the banking system takes advantage of that.
"Even the savings banks from whom we might expect to receive encouraging messages about the public benefits of saving have grown schizophrenic, peddling credit and debit cards rather than savings accounts, joining in the chorus of infantilizing voices instructing people to spend - spend beyond what they have... And so...producers pursue their rational individual interests as sellers, consumers pursue their interests as buyers, and presto, consumer capitalism flourishes right up till the moment the national economy fails, and with it, capitalism itself."
He offers many statistics about how credit card companies and loan officers take advantage of people with poor credit by offering them high interest loans and credit cards despite their risk. People, like Sarah Palin during the VP debate, have placed blame on what they call "predatory lending". But I think people need to exercise more personal responsibility. I am very careful about my money and I don't spend more than I can afford. 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.
In the interview he bashes bottled water, a "manufactured need" for Americans, when people in 3rd world countries period. I agree that some people confuse needs with wants and don't appreciate what they have and companies play a part in that because their goal is to create need for their products. But what about the philanthropic programs that some bottled water companies fund, with part of their profits, to help provide those 3rd world countries with water? Evian, for example, has the "Evian Water Protection Institute" to "foster knowledge on the sustainable management of water resources and help the world's populations preserve their wetlands." (www.evian.com)
One chapter is devoted to brand identities.
"Branded lifestyles are not merely superficial veneers on deeper identities but have to some degree become subsitute identities - forms of acquired character that have the potential to go all the way down to the core. They displace traditional ethnic and cultural traits and overwhelm the voluntary aspects of identity we choose for ourselves."
Some people definitely let brand identity replace their own identity - they are called superficial teenagers and yuppies. He quotes someone who despises these consumers who "sip double-tall, nonfat lattes, chat on cell phones, and listen to NPR while driving their immaculate SUVs to Pottery Barn to shop for $48 titanium spatulas." I know people like this; they are superficial and materialistic. But those people would be that way regardless because that is their personality. More power to the marketers of those companies for doing their job and making those people buy overpriced spatulas!
For normal people, though, brand identities do play a small role. Starbucks is one of my favorite comfort foods - I get a mocha (fake coffee for people who don't like real coffee) whenever I'm having a really bad day at work or when I take a sick day, like today. There's something specific about the whole experience, not just the mocha itself, that is enjoyable. There's relaxing classical or jazz music playing, the cushioned chairs are deep and comfortable, the cup has a sophisticated appearance that makes it seem more like a special treat. That's all branding and it definitely affects the product - and I like it. That doesn't supercede my own identity, though. I am a caring, liberal, catholic, intelligent, forgetful, hard working person. Not a "Starbucks drinker".
My overall thought on the book is this: I agree with him that markets have created manufactured needs, developed poor spending habits in people, and implanted certain brand identities in our society. I place the blame, however, on the people with the poor spending habits or superficial attitudes because they allowed themselves to be "consumed". Now, not all businesses are honest and virtuous. But don't blame the marketers because they are just doing their job: differentiating their product, creating a brand, and establishing a need for their company in the market place.
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