My last post on this blog focused on the ethics of marketing with particular regards given to Klein's oft-cited book No logo (2000.) At the time I hadn't yet finished the text, but instead provided a general rebuttal of two equally dogmatic and myopic opinions; those two opinions being that marketing as a field, medium, concept, paradigm or whatever you want to call it, is a) COMPLETELY good/harmless or b) COMPLETELY negative. I concluded that each was equally short-sighted and unfair. I will review No Logo in the following paragraphs, the book available for purchase in most bookstores/online retailers.
The first segment of the book is called 'No Space' in which, she argues, that there is a deficiency in unbranded space in the modern world, with schools, streets, and cross-national boundaries all gracing the same logos of a few global companies. Main examples cited include Nike, the Gap & Pepsi amongst others. This new phenomenon of branding is portrayed to be pervasive across even the most stringent of boundaries including arts & music with corporate sponsorships causing a rocket in prices of attendance etc. Other arguments are made such as that of corporate censorship of media in 'family-friendly' stores and, more alarmingly, university campuses who have been threatened with gag orders to not publish research that undermines corporate objectives. All the arguments presented in the book are well-thought out and do highlight what was -at the time- a very obscure problem that had recently had the spotlight thrust upon it. With the economy becoming more focused on services as opposed to production, the American economy -along with the British economy- changed radically and this -she agues- is what has caused a significant proliferation of underpaid, overworked employees working for companies such as McDonalds. These arguments are backed up with sound evidence throughout, as can be seen with a cursory glance at the Appendix and Notes sections.
This section of the novel follows on expertly to 'No Choice'. Here she links the mass occupation of space to the notion of brands cannibalising competition in the market, citing numerous example from Wal-Mart price wars to the Starbucks model of self-cannibalisation between franchisees in the same town. She links the branding concept to synergies and mergers/acquisitions, which have given media conglomerates unprecedented power across the world, again citing many examples from News Corp (The Times, The Sun/NOTW etc.) to the Ted Turner empire of Time Warner/AOL (later deemed a disastrous merger.) This, she argues, provides the perfect opportunity for media companies such as Disney to channel their entertainment media exclusively onto their news media (ABC) and advertise through an uncontested channel. This is argued to have reduced the level of choice consumers have between brands and has made it more difficult for consumers to make decisions since -for example- someone opposed to Fox News and therefore wants nothing to do with it, may inadvertently give money to Fox via another News Corp. property e.g. The Wall Street Journal. From the American perspective, she states that the Reagan Administration was responsible for mass deregulation and removal of many merger laws, which have resulted in the ten largest mergers of the 20th century.
Next, we have 'No Jobs' which argues the case against the new branded economy since many of the jobs that have gone into the now-deficient production function are overseas, paying slave wages. Being written at the twilight of the 20th century, this book was written in the aftermath of the initial scandal surrounding Nike and the Indonesian sweatshops, commenting on the lack of transparency that companies seem to have. This is argued to have precipitated the 'no choice' effect. However, the book doesn't merely focus on sweatshops but also on the underpaying service sector, directing criticism towards McDonalds with its anti-union stance and autocratic management style. She argues this to be yet another symptom of branding since the business model is not focused on making things anymore but on building lifestyles. She tells a variety of stories of fight-backs against this issue on university campuses etc.
In the final section, she tells stories of resilience against large multinationals such as the Reclaim the Streets movement, Greenpeace etc. and focuses on three very resounding cases: Nike, Shell & McDonalds. She details the three cases meticulously from Nike's sweatshop coping mechanisms; Shell's oil rig sea disposal and John Major's unpopular backing of such an orthodox, yet unpopular method. Shell is also examined in the case of the Niger-Delta pollution and the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Shell station protests across Europe that ensued. Finally, McDonalds is put under the microscope in the famous McLibel trial, which ended in a humiliating result for the food giant. She uses these cases as a stepping stone, a microcosm of a new consumer who cares, is more critical and that for the first time, regular people were above the corporation.
in total, the arguments and cases used to back them are brilliantly implemented; a serious discussion as opposed to idealistic hyperbole. Of course the book points out what is obvious and there is little in the way of solutions suggested however, admitting the problem is after all the road to recovery and she does point out numerous bodies that are attempting to circumvent negative aspects of the modern corporate climate. This is heralded as a significant step forward for customer rights and the rights of workers, both domestic and international. A spot-on critique of what marketing/PR can and has been used for in all-too-recent times.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
A Short Discussion on Ethics
This post will discuss some ethical debate that has taken place across the world for many years now, but has become particularly pervasive in more recent times. These are the times of the ethical consumer.
If you read my first post you may have seen that I am currently reading the popular anti-corporate book, No Logo, by Naomi Klein. The book was praised for being a call-to-arms against consumer society, by offering a scathing critique of the moral integrity of modern marketing, particularly the branding paradigm of the 1980s onwards. Branding is seen as being the 'selling of lifestyles and dreams' if you will, as opposed to the old model of the clunky manufacturer like Ford producing products to fuel the domestic economy. This, she argues, has had negative influences on jobs and the over-reliance on the service sector, which, during the 1990s -when the book was first published- was comprised of under-paid, over-worked employees stuck in dead-end jobs. This is of course seen overseas as well as in the west with sweatshop labour under less democratic governments, hence union-busting and other unlawful practices etc. All of these criticisms are of course true but other, more covert and insidious criticisms are also made and continue to be made.
These criticisms are grounded in notions of marketing and persuasive communications being manipulative, damaging and presenting messages inappropriate for certain audiences e.g. preying on the naiveté of the elderly or young children and even promoting certain ideologies e.g. the celebrity-obessesed culture and associated health issues of eating disorders such as Anorexia Nervosa, especially amongst young girls. I bring these up since it seems awfully arbitrary to attack a field on these abstract notions -e.g. manipulation- which leads me to my main point. The degree to which Marketing as a field is perceived to be harmful is very broad. Personally, I would draw a spectrum between the perception of it being completely benign and completely malign, both of which -in my humble opinion- are equally absurd and myopic.
The first assumes -for example- that because people have freewill they can decide for themselves and that the wider socio-cultural issues of not fitting in etc. are non-existent. Companies spending billions of £s, $s etc. on persuading folk doesn't do anything. If that were the absolute case, companies would not bother to have marketing functions if they were not doing something but, then again, there is the old advertising adage: "Half of my advertising budget is wasted, trouble is, I don't know which half." The notion of freewill is laughable -especially given certain markets such as children. The case of children is that they are impressionable and not rational. Marketing as a discipline thrives off of irrationality and irrational purchases. When consumers are already irrational the job is much easier. I would point you to a documentary, The Corporation (2003,) in which marketing to children is discussed and the fact that ad budgets exceeded $10 billion per annum at the end of the 1990s. Since marketing is so pervasive across every part of the developed world, there are countless technologies, messages etc. being implemented. Toy companies utilise the latest in media technology, hone the material with psychologists and other child development theorists. These people are not just present to provide age-appropriate, educational products; they are there to ensure companies make a return to their shareholders. This is a major issue for marketeers who are still accused of manipulating children, although regulation has become much tougher over the years. In short, the microcosm just presented is a resounding example of controversial and often morally-questionable marketing. The Randian idea of personal responsibility does not work when faced with insurmountable odds from an external source.
Now, some may argue not from freewill but the perspective of "companies are people too! Why are you denying our right to free speech?" This excuse is petty and any marketer using it is giving the profession a bad name. Yes, logically speaking, this is correct. But the gaping hole is in the power you wield. Companies like Apple, with capital reserves of over $100 billion, have far more speech power than any normal person on the street. Using this excuse is akin to the millionaire fraudster who stole £500 million from a bank, claiming the beggar who stole a £10 note from an off-licence to be equally immoral. In all, the Marketing Fetishists are merely ideologues, taking an idea and sticking to it like fly to flypaper, hypocritically viewing themselves as exempt from their own criteria e.g. personal responsibility not extending to the companies they view as "people too." With this, we will move onto the next camp: The Marketing Antagonists.
This position posits that marketing is inherently evil since it breaks certain key tenets such as freewill. Yes, to a certain extent, marketing relies on the manipulation of people's freewill, much like any other form of persuasion in our daily lives. Having said that, charities also use marketing tactics that often play on emotions and as a result, they raise cash for good causes: Is that evil too? If you accept manipulation to any extent and for any cause to be unethical all the time, then marketing as a profession is doomed! However, it would also mean that humans in general are awful since we all try to persuade, it's a natural part of communication. Adopting this idea is equally closed-minded since there is a grey area and also keep in mind: Marketing, like science, is neither good or evil inherently, but rather it is the purpose to which it is put and the motives of those implementing its tools, that can have good, evil and indifferent motivations and even from these motivations, results contrary to what is expected can arise, should plans go awry.
In conclusion, marketing is merely a system that -according to the CIM- anticipates, identifies and satisfies consumer requirements profitably. However, bodies such as the CIM, AMA etc. all have set out ethical guidelines and practices in order to bring moral structure and integrity to a profession that has, for too long, been rife with unscrupulous practice, morally-bankrupt ideals and an ethically tone-deaf aesthetic. This is beginning to change, falling in line with other profession such as doctors, teachers, engineers and other professional archetypes of our 21st century society.
Please give feedback on this essay if you wish and I hope you found anything in this useful. If you would like to know more, please feel free to get in touch.
If you read my first post you may have seen that I am currently reading the popular anti-corporate book, No Logo, by Naomi Klein. The book was praised for being a call-to-arms against consumer society, by offering a scathing critique of the moral integrity of modern marketing, particularly the branding paradigm of the 1980s onwards. Branding is seen as being the 'selling of lifestyles and dreams' if you will, as opposed to the old model of the clunky manufacturer like Ford producing products to fuel the domestic economy. This, she argues, has had negative influences on jobs and the over-reliance on the service sector, which, during the 1990s -when the book was first published- was comprised of under-paid, over-worked employees stuck in dead-end jobs. This is of course seen overseas as well as in the west with sweatshop labour under less democratic governments, hence union-busting and other unlawful practices etc. All of these criticisms are of course true but other, more covert and insidious criticisms are also made and continue to be made.
These criticisms are grounded in notions of marketing and persuasive communications being manipulative, damaging and presenting messages inappropriate for certain audiences e.g. preying on the naiveté of the elderly or young children and even promoting certain ideologies e.g. the celebrity-obessesed culture and associated health issues of eating disorders such as Anorexia Nervosa, especially amongst young girls. I bring these up since it seems awfully arbitrary to attack a field on these abstract notions -e.g. manipulation- which leads me to my main point. The degree to which Marketing as a field is perceived to be harmful is very broad. Personally, I would draw a spectrum between the perception of it being completely benign and completely malign, both of which -in my humble opinion- are equally absurd and myopic.
The first assumes -for example- that because people have freewill they can decide for themselves and that the wider socio-cultural issues of not fitting in etc. are non-existent. Companies spending billions of £s, $s etc. on persuading folk doesn't do anything. If that were the absolute case, companies would not bother to have marketing functions if they were not doing something but, then again, there is the old advertising adage: "Half of my advertising budget is wasted, trouble is, I don't know which half." The notion of freewill is laughable -especially given certain markets such as children. The case of children is that they are impressionable and not rational. Marketing as a discipline thrives off of irrationality and irrational purchases. When consumers are already irrational the job is much easier. I would point you to a documentary, The Corporation (2003,) in which marketing to children is discussed and the fact that ad budgets exceeded $10 billion per annum at the end of the 1990s. Since marketing is so pervasive across every part of the developed world, there are countless technologies, messages etc. being implemented. Toy companies utilise the latest in media technology, hone the material with psychologists and other child development theorists. These people are not just present to provide age-appropriate, educational products; they are there to ensure companies make a return to their shareholders. This is a major issue for marketeers who are still accused of manipulating children, although regulation has become much tougher over the years. In short, the microcosm just presented is a resounding example of controversial and often morally-questionable marketing. The Randian idea of personal responsibility does not work when faced with insurmountable odds from an external source.
Now, some may argue not from freewill but the perspective of "companies are people too! Why are you denying our right to free speech?" This excuse is petty and any marketer using it is giving the profession a bad name. Yes, logically speaking, this is correct. But the gaping hole is in the power you wield. Companies like Apple, with capital reserves of over $100 billion, have far more speech power than any normal person on the street. Using this excuse is akin to the millionaire fraudster who stole £500 million from a bank, claiming the beggar who stole a £10 note from an off-licence to be equally immoral. In all, the Marketing Fetishists are merely ideologues, taking an idea and sticking to it like fly to flypaper, hypocritically viewing themselves as exempt from their own criteria e.g. personal responsibility not extending to the companies they view as "people too." With this, we will move onto the next camp: The Marketing Antagonists.
This position posits that marketing is inherently evil since it breaks certain key tenets such as freewill. Yes, to a certain extent, marketing relies on the manipulation of people's freewill, much like any other form of persuasion in our daily lives. Having said that, charities also use marketing tactics that often play on emotions and as a result, they raise cash for good causes: Is that evil too? If you accept manipulation to any extent and for any cause to be unethical all the time, then marketing as a profession is doomed! However, it would also mean that humans in general are awful since we all try to persuade, it's a natural part of communication. Adopting this idea is equally closed-minded since there is a grey area and also keep in mind: Marketing, like science, is neither good or evil inherently, but rather it is the purpose to which it is put and the motives of those implementing its tools, that can have good, evil and indifferent motivations and even from these motivations, results contrary to what is expected can arise, should plans go awry.
In conclusion, marketing is merely a system that -according to the CIM- anticipates, identifies and satisfies consumer requirements profitably. However, bodies such as the CIM, AMA etc. all have set out ethical guidelines and practices in order to bring moral structure and integrity to a profession that has, for too long, been rife with unscrupulous practice, morally-bankrupt ideals and an ethically tone-deaf aesthetic. This is beginning to change, falling in line with other profession such as doctors, teachers, engineers and other professional archetypes of our 21st century society.
Please give feedback on this essay if you wish and I hope you found anything in this useful. If you would like to know more, please feel free to get in touch.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Novel
Good Day.
As those of you who read the first post will know, I am also in the process of writing a SF/F novel. This book is still in the works and hopefully, I expect to have a first draft completed by May. Although my life is quite busy, I am trying to get into the swing of continuous writing since I usually write every day for so long and then lapse into something else, sometimes not touching it for a month. The amount I write can vary from only 200 words or less to over 600 words in a very quick timespan. There was one week where I found myself writing some 1000-1500 words every day. If I could write to that speed, I'd probably have finished the first draft long ago. Thanks for reading this update and I wish you luck in whatever projects you may embark upon.
Regards,
Jake.
As those of you who read the first post will know, I am also in the process of writing a SF/F novel. This book is still in the works and hopefully, I expect to have a first draft completed by May. Although my life is quite busy, I am trying to get into the swing of continuous writing since I usually write every day for so long and then lapse into something else, sometimes not touching it for a month. The amount I write can vary from only 200 words or less to over 600 words in a very quick timespan. There was one week where I found myself writing some 1000-1500 words every day. If I could write to that speed, I'd probably have finished the first draft long ago. Thanks for reading this update and I wish you luck in whatever projects you may embark upon.
Regards,
Jake.
Monday, February 4, 2013
A Deleted Poem . . .
Hi.
the poem below was posted twice on Y! Answers but got deleted both times. It received a star from one reviewer (grr.) In any case, I will post it up here where it isn't in danger from trolls or trigger-happy moderators. Hope you enjoy it!
the poem below was posted twice on Y! Answers but got deleted both times. It received a star from one reviewer (grr.) In any case, I will post it up here where it isn't in danger from trolls or trigger-happy moderators. Hope you enjoy it!
GOOD DAY
How did you become so pervasive?
Turn the tides of minds so great,
Persuasive, in the life of hate.
The pathogen, off of which you leech,
Destructive, virally it attempts to teach.
It corrupts brains like data, alters perceptions:
Reality to you is mere constructed infection.
You stand tall; rise above the mightier that fall.
You rise prominently; undeservedly, you sit at the apex of a
tower.
The base of such a structure, overwhelmed with daffodils,
the blinding yellow and gold,
Reminding us all of solitude, in Wordsworth’s resounding
ode.
This tale is different however, for I must warn,
A fall so distant for you to meet, from your arrogance it is
borne.
You have risen so far, built upon a tower of scorn.
Soon you shall be sat amidst the tower’s rubble, sulking and
forlorn.
But before I leave, I bid you good day to a height so tall,
For I remember that, which you have forgotten;
Empires always
fall.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A New Poem for You
The poem below was posted on Yahoo Answers for critiques so if you wish to review it their, you are more than welcome. Hope you enjoy it!
WATCH THE WORLD
You stand and fall with me.
Embellished in my pain
and all that I have gained.
You stand in the light of my mind’s eye,
Silhouetted as time goes by.
You walk away from me,
Shrink into the distance;
You walk; you fly, while I take a hand to still your cry.
A song that should never be sung,
You return in dreams, still so young.
You watch the world with me at your side.
You run with me to don your disguise.
You’re the cancer of my mind.
You occupy a darkened place.
Stilled forever in perpetual time.
Remain inside without a face.
You watch the world through my eyes only.
You’re the one, the figment of the lonely.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
A more personal post . . .
Hello everyone,
This post will be different from those uploaded so far and will focus on something in my personal life. As you may know, I am a university student and -in case you didn't guess from the last post- study marketing. That part isn't really important but I feel it somewhat orthodox to bring it all together and 'set the scene' if you will for those who may be new to the blog.
Anyway, throughout my life I have always struggled with handwriting. I mean it's truly abysmal. I can't even read it myself sometimes and it is because of this that for the last couple of years, I was granted support for examinations in the form of word processing. This was great since my typing speed is faster than my writing speed. So I blitzed through college achieving some high grades and behold, here I am in university. Recently, I was advised to pay for a screening for a learning disability known as "Dysgraphia" in order to get the same support. The popular prefix of "Dys-" deriving from the Greek word for "bad, inhibited, laboured" etc. and "-graphia" translating to writing. So Bad Writing, essentially.
I attended the screening where I was instructed to (hand)write a passage for around five minutes detailing why I thought I had the condition. I explained as best I could and read it back to the educational psychiatrist -again- as best I could since she couldn't read it. After this, I sat a catalogue of IQ tests to measure the myriad of skills that we use in daily life including: Spelling, Motor-Sensory (Fine & Gross,) Vocabulary, Visual Logic etc. Tasks included walking heel-to-toe in a straight line, spelling numerous words from the simple to the arduous and giving definitions for certain words as they were read to me.
At the moment I have yet to receive the full report, but basically I scored well-above average for vocabulary and reading ability, top-end-of/ slightly-above average for spelling and writing, if I remember correctly and generally average or below-average for the visual and motor-skills components. In the end I was diagnosed as Dyspraxic, with the possibility of an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder.)
This is strange since I do match some of the criteria and after taking a online AQ (Aspergers Quotient,) I returned with a result of 35. This is above the score of those who -according to the study- were diagnosed with an ASD of some kind (AQ 32 on average for 80% of those diagnosed.) Please note that I took the AQ months before the screening. Additionally, I have suspected for sometime that I have SPD (Schizoid Personality Disorder) due to the numerous factors throughout my life so far that -upon reading the description- seem so true of me e.g. regressing into a 'fantasy world'; lacking close friends, complete lack of emotions including anger and general inability to express any form of emotion. Although I'm not completely 'robotic', any emotion that I express seems to be 'false' to me. So why bring this up? The reason why I thought back to this is due to me seeing a university psychiatrist earlier in the year to diagnose me since I was sure that I had something not quite right about me. But in the end, the attempt proved vane and so I left it alone since -to be honest- I liked my own company and the fact that I could (can) regress into my own head. I like that a great deal. SPD does however, lye along the same Autistic Spectrum and so, could I have something more after all? I'm not exactly sure what a diagnosis would mean, but it is an interesting thought to ponder and I was advised to see yet another shrink about interacting with others with similar disorders so I could discuss my problems in a more 'intellectual' manner.
Well, that's it. I hope you enjoyed reading this essay and I should just point out that the titles most likely to appear in my next chapbook, "Myths to Believe In," are as follows:
1- Ballad of the Dream Weaver
2- The Harlequin
3- Flow
4- The Traveller
5- The Perpetuator & The Procrastinator
6- Phenomenon
7- Dreams: The Tundra Thief
8- The Abyss Stares Back
9- Space Opera
10- What If?
11- Dreams: The Mirror
Hope you enjoy this blog and along with that, hope you enjoy your day/night/evening/afternoon.
Until Next Time,
Jake.
This post will be different from those uploaded so far and will focus on something in my personal life. As you may know, I am a university student and -in case you didn't guess from the last post- study marketing. That part isn't really important but I feel it somewhat orthodox to bring it all together and 'set the scene' if you will for those who may be new to the blog.
Anyway, throughout my life I have always struggled with handwriting. I mean it's truly abysmal. I can't even read it myself sometimes and it is because of this that for the last couple of years, I was granted support for examinations in the form of word processing. This was great since my typing speed is faster than my writing speed. So I blitzed through college achieving some high grades and behold, here I am in university. Recently, I was advised to pay for a screening for a learning disability known as "Dysgraphia" in order to get the same support. The popular prefix of "Dys-" deriving from the Greek word for "bad, inhibited, laboured" etc. and "-graphia" translating to writing. So Bad Writing, essentially.
I attended the screening where I was instructed to (hand)write a passage for around five minutes detailing why I thought I had the condition. I explained as best I could and read it back to the educational psychiatrist -again- as best I could since she couldn't read it. After this, I sat a catalogue of IQ tests to measure the myriad of skills that we use in daily life including: Spelling, Motor-Sensory (Fine & Gross,) Vocabulary, Visual Logic etc. Tasks included walking heel-to-toe in a straight line, spelling numerous words from the simple to the arduous and giving definitions for certain words as they were read to me.
At the moment I have yet to receive the full report, but basically I scored well-above average for vocabulary and reading ability, top-end-of/ slightly-above average for spelling and writing, if I remember correctly and generally average or below-average for the visual and motor-skills components. In the end I was diagnosed as Dyspraxic, with the possibility of an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder.)
This is strange since I do match some of the criteria and after taking a online AQ (Aspergers Quotient,) I returned with a result of 35. This is above the score of those who -according to the study- were diagnosed with an ASD of some kind (AQ 32 on average for 80% of those diagnosed.) Please note that I took the AQ months before the screening. Additionally, I have suspected for sometime that I have SPD (Schizoid Personality Disorder) due to the numerous factors throughout my life so far that -upon reading the description- seem so true of me e.g. regressing into a 'fantasy world'; lacking close friends, complete lack of emotions including anger and general inability to express any form of emotion. Although I'm not completely 'robotic', any emotion that I express seems to be 'false' to me. So why bring this up? The reason why I thought back to this is due to me seeing a university psychiatrist earlier in the year to diagnose me since I was sure that I had something not quite right about me. But in the end, the attempt proved vane and so I left it alone since -to be honest- I liked my own company and the fact that I could (can) regress into my own head. I like that a great deal. SPD does however, lye along the same Autistic Spectrum and so, could I have something more after all? I'm not exactly sure what a diagnosis would mean, but it is an interesting thought to ponder and I was advised to see yet another shrink about interacting with others with similar disorders so I could discuss my problems in a more 'intellectual' manner.
Well, that's it. I hope you enjoyed reading this essay and I should just point out that the titles most likely to appear in my next chapbook, "Myths to Believe In," are as follows:
1- Ballad of the Dream Weaver
2- The Harlequin
3- Flow
4- The Traveller
5- The Perpetuator & The Procrastinator
6- Phenomenon
7- Dreams: The Tundra Thief
8- The Abyss Stares Back
9- Space Opera
10- What If?
11- Dreams: The Mirror
Hope you enjoy this blog and along with that, hope you enjoy your day/night/evening/afternoon.
Until Next Time,
Jake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)