Bill Whittle has got my attention again, although he's less brilliant than observant this time around at Afterburner. He explains something we all know - Republicans suck at branding, marketing and the otherwise seductive art of getting people to trust what's inside by making what's outside very attractive. When it comes to philosophy and science, marketing is a waste of time, except when there is no new discovery to be done, which is the case with Republican politics. That's why Sarah Palin is sucking up all the oxygen. She's the only one with any style whatsoever, which is an incredibly dire indictment on the aesthetics of the GOP.
Anyway.
I was at the Rite Aid the other day to pickup some toothbrushes, and I found the un-mainstream area. Take a look at these products. Weird.
Branding is powerful stuff, and it promises things that become part of one's identity in a modern society. It's not enough to just wash your hair and be clean. You must have a particular sort of shampoo for the job. When I was a kid, I washed my hair with soap, and Ivory was too expensive for my family. We used Cashmere Bouquet.
The downside of branding is something I've always been acutely aware of most of my life. That is because I didn't realize how wide the middle class in America was - that we could imbue with social value so many class boundaries of luxury and convenience. And all of this transference of meaning had little and sometimes absolutely nothing to do with the underlying value of the product. You could show up for a job interview clean, but if a 'man' smells like a 'woman', the job is lost. Who writes the rule that men should not use strawberry fragrant shampoo? Why is a TAG watch better than a Movado, or is it?
The hierarchy of class signifyers in consumer products has a long and storied history in the US. I trace it back to Harley Earl, the legendary car designer at General Motors. It was he who first decided to put a fin on a car and then change the fins every year to compel people to buy another new car, and thus was born the economy of 'trading up'.
The man who wrote the book on the subtle and powerful art of semiotics is Marshall Blonsky, an intellectual hero of mine. His 1992 magnum opus American Mythologies is a whirlwind tour of those who write the rules about shampoo and know exactly what it means to wear exactly which shade of white.
The downside is that the significance of a brand is entirely made from nothing but the accumulated beliefs reinforced by subtle refinements on reflections of the self. People make up their minds what they want to be, marketers show their products in the light of that established being. People buy and become, in their own minds, that thing, and the circle is closed, then reinforced. It defies the laws of physics to orbit around a void, but market phenomenon create their own gravity.
Until they collapse. Until somebody says, "Hey wait, you're not supposed to drink turpentine!"
A wealthy country can sell anything. A wealthy society can buy anything. The opportunity for fraud is practically infinite, even as promises defy logic, physics, common sense. Obama can promise anything. GM can sell any car. Citibank can underwrite any venture. Until they suddenly run up against the unwillingness of people to defy logic, physics, and common sense. Then how the mighty fall. Except nothing has changed at all in the universe of reality.
Not long ago, I discovered that forcing the laws of logic, physics and common sense on the masses was the most compelling reason for war. But there are many battles and skirmishes that settle such questions of semiotic deception. We are witnessing one now, as the veils are falling on the 'science' behind global climate change's technocratic elite.
My advice of course is my own discipline. Curiosity, Skepticism, Analysis. Caveat Emptor.
Recent Comments