Consumerism

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

With me, and especially with repeated commercials in the same half hour, they act as a repugnance. I avoid these products.

[airman15 4,111]

Everytime I try to watch TV, I see the same ads at least 3 times in every commercial break. They are usually for AXE products, Lawyers or Fast Food, none of which I want

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

O thou of the gules beard, wasn't that a rather long screed?

We live in a consumer society, and it is far to late to rail against it. However, some adjustments may be possible. The one I would like to accomplish is to shut down the mindless, repetitive commercials that both denigrate my intelligence and the persons depicted in them. The Mad Av Bunch need to be taken down several pegs, and be made to realize they are fulfilling Newton Minnow's prophesy. Television has become a 'vast wasteland'.

There are too many commercial breaks with vapid content, and they are repeated too often. Maybe it is good bucks for the actors that appear in them, but that is no reason for the creative and intellectual bankruptcy of the sponsors. It is the sponsors that approve this junk at some delegated level, and the ad agencies cater to them because they are paying the bill. Why do I have the feeling that these delegates are ex-members of the Mad Av in bunch, and that what we are seeing is a case of mutual self-abuse? How about we get on with some good entertaining advertising that doesn't make people look stupid, and at the same time keeps the viewers' interest. The advertising could be better than the 'show' to which it is attached.

I just can't believe that people who have the acumen to run big corporations, if they really looked at how they are being represented, could allow this travesty. I think that none of the top executives of these companies watch television much beyond newscasts. The whole thing smacks of utter contempt for the viewing public.

[airman15 4,111]

Sometimes when commercials show on TV, i think they are trying to cram these products down our throats. But the biggest pet peeve is when someone says i suck because I don't have a particular product as they do.

[9988 428]

Yes. But it is done mostly by these well-known stupid rich kids. I am not big fan of consumerism, I prefer liberal capitalizm.

  Edited April 27, 2011 by 9988  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yes. But it is done mostly by these well-known stupid rich kids. I am not big fan of consumerism, I prefer liberal capitalizm.

Hah! Humbug!

[zahrul3 471]

Most of the 'consumers' are the upper middle class, the sentence explains itself why.

The reason how Justin Bieber, Kesha and Lady GaGa became successful because they were advertised a ton by the producers. If you go to a concert from one of those, most of them are upper middle class kids with their parent.

With 70% of americans are the upper middle class, it makes it easier for companies to market.

Upper middle class families could buy what they want but lack the knowledge and wisdom about buying something. The lower classes, educated classes and the upper class usually have the wisdom to think before buying something.

Alot of upper middle class households have both parents work. A salesman earning 40k and an officegirl earning 40k earns more than a single professor earning 70k. You don't really need to have a degree for an officegirl let alone a salesman, while you need high degrees for jobs like professors and scientists.

If we manage to break down unions, the amount of upper middle class people gets reduced and ads no longer work anymore. I remember in 2002, when Indonesia was still a third world country, ads didn't really exist. Nowadays after Indonesia grew richer, ads appear constantly and everywhere.

A lot of unions get too much pay for the work they do, the guy attaching doors in a car factort certainly doesn't deserve 24-28/hour, thats just too much when its the same as a pilot or professors, who really deserves that money.

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

Most of the 'consumers' are the upper middle class, the sentence explains itself why.

The reason how Justin Bieber, Kesha and Lady GaGa became successful because they were advertised a ton by the producers. If you go to a concert from one of those, most of them are upper middle class kids with their parent.

With 70% of americans are the upper middle class, it makes it easier for companies to market.

Upper middle class families could buy what they want but lack the knowledge and wisdom about buying something. The lower classes, educated classes and the upper class usually have the wisdom to think before buying something.

Alot of upper middle class households have both parents work. A salesman earning 40k and an officegirl earning 40k earns more than a single professor earning 70k. You don't really need to have a degree for an officegirl let alone a salesman, while you need high degrees for jobs like professors and scientists.

If we manage to break down unions, the amount of upper middle class people gets reduced and ads no longer work anymore. I remember in 2002, when Indonesia was still a third world country, ads didn't really exist. Nowadays after Indonesia grew richer, ads appear constantly and everywhere.

A lot of unions get too much pay for the work they do, the guy attaching doors in a car factort certainly doesn't deserve 24-28/hour, thats just too much when its the same as a pilot or professors, who really deserves that money.

Lady Gaga, Kesha, Justen Bieber: It's their publicists who give them all their publicity. Producers have nothing to do with it ;-)

70% upper middle class? Not sure how you got that. 41% of Americans make 20k a year or less and are considered poor. That only leaves 59%, who are mostly average middle class, less than 40k a year.

I enjoy some commercials. Especially the humourous ones. Commercials are needed to keep the entertainment going. However I agree, there needs to be some variety in advertisements. Don't want to see the same commercial every 10 minutes, which the internet has a bad habit of doing to the point of being noise torture.

24 FPS on a television program and many broadcast networks will reduce this to 16 FPS, to allow an extra five minutes of commercials per hour. We the viewer, will not notice this with the naked eye.

  Edited April 28, 2011 by frndofyaweh  

[airman15 4,111]

Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Ke$ha are all terrible pop artists who will be gone within the next few years. Thats the problem with pop artists, they get huge support from record companies, which in turn brainwash the public to love these losers, then become the most hated people on earth. (Ex:

2005- "Holy Crap! It's the Backstreet Boys!"

Following years- "Who are they?" or "Wow, they suck!"

Now- "OMG! Lady Gaga!"

Later- "Who cares about her? She sucks!")

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Your icons are day-flies. Each new fad blots out the prior ones. Pop idols are just that "pop", and on the inside, just hot air. Without good engineering, most of them couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.

Please do not try to set these vapid attempts at artistry as some kind of icon.

[zahrul3 471]

70% upper middle class? Not sure how you got that. 41% of Americans make 20k a year or less and are considered poor. That only leaves 59%, who are mostly average middle class, less than 40k a year.

Alot of American households have 2 people working, plus that they live in a city. Most of the poor live in the rural parts of America, mainly southerners and people in the mountains. Earning 20k as a farmer is already alot, since they don't really use their money much anyway. Everywhere around the world, farmers and rural people are always poorer than city people, since farming doesn't earn or need money anyway.

Assure that, it doesn't include people who use illegal stuff(selling crack/heroin/meth). It also includes young people starting a career working at a fast food chain. They will pan out to be middle class. It also includes delinquents, junkies and drop-outs, which for sure are nowhere near citizens, they're beasts now. Most of these poor people in the city are drug addicts. Immigrants legal and illegal should not be included since they're not Americans and ex-pats should be included as they are Americans living in another country.

When a country becomes richer, consumerism increases. Its happening now here, where people are buying smartphones en masse, poor or rich. While the rich could buy blackberries, the poorer people tend to buy locally made smartphones.

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

70% upper middle class? Not sure how you got that. 41% of Americans make 20k a year or less and are considered poor. That only leaves 59%, who are mostly average middle class, less than 40k a year.

Alot of American households have 2 people working, plus that they live in a city. Most of the poor live in the rural parts of America, mainly southerners and people in the mountains. Earning 20k as a farmer is already alot, since they don't really use their money much anyway. Everywhere around the world, farmers and rural people are always poorer than city people, since farming doesn't earn or need money anyway.

Assure that, it doesn't include people who use illegal stuff(selling crack/heroin/meth). It also includes young people starting a career working at a fast food chain. They will pan out to be middle class. It also includes delinquents, junkies and drop-outs, which for sure are nowhere near citizens, they're beasts now. Most of these poor people in the city are drug addicts. Immigrants legal and illegal should not be included since they're not Americans and ex-pats should be included as they are Americans living in another country.

When a country becomes richer, consumerism increases. Its happening now here, where people are buying smartphones en masse, poor or rich. While the rich could buy blackberries, the poorer people tend to buy locally made smartphones.

That 41% comes from the US Census Bureau, meaning the 20K a year is per household(two and possibly even three people total, making 20k together). My daughter is 23 yo and her husband is 23 yo - they both work in fast food service and their total household income last year was 22.5 K. I helped them do there taxes.

That is just not true of farmers in America, who spend 100's of thousands of there profit on re-investing for next harvest, animal feeding, farm machinery, repairs, storage, etc. Many of the farmers here in my rural area are millionaires, when you consider all their property and product. I grew up on a grain and hog farm in southern Ohio and my father was filthy rich at harvest time, yet he worked for a corporate farmer who actually owned two dozen farms and hired families like mine to work them. One farmer friend of mine here, is worth 4 million USD, with all his land, livestock and his own gas station for his farm equipment. He owns his own tractor trailors for hauling product also.

Farmers must re-invest their monies, moreso than any other career and make up USAs largest spenders on large items. So yes, farmers are somewhat poor, due to the costs of keeping up a farm. Every few years, farmers must purchse new or used farm machines in USA. Here is an example: 1991 John Deere 9500, 914 P.U. header, hydraulic chaff spreader, dual range cylinder, hopper topper, new tires, green lighted yearly , shedded , very reliable and in excellent condition. 2882 separator hours 3670 engine hours. $55000 A brand new combine can cost a quarter million dollars, yet many American farms own several of these things.

  Edited April 28, 2011 by frndofyaweh  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am afraid that our Indonesian friend lacks the proper referents. Most people in Canada and the U.S. owe so much consumer debt plus a mortgage that they will never be clear. Often a family needs two incomes just to make payments on their debt which is often in excess of three times their annual income. I call this poverty when people live from paycheck to paycheck. Americans only appear to be rich. As the song says "They owe their soul to the company store."

All this nice income goes out in debt payments. Living large usually means living leveraged. One hiccup and its off to bankruptcy court.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Ke$ha are all terrible pop artists who will be gone within the next few years. Thats the problem with pop artists, they get huge support from record companies, which in turn brainwash the public to love these losers, then become the most hated people on earth. (Ex:

2005- "Holy Crap! It's the Backstreet Boys!"

Following years- "Who are they?" or "Wow, they suck!"

Now- "OMG! Lady Gaga!"

Later- "Who cares about her? She sucks!")

That used to be how it was.

these people never go away anymore.

This phenomenon is why Aldo Nova still tours.

[zahrul3 471]

I am afraid that our Indonesian friend lacks the proper referents. Most people in Canada and the U.S. owe so much consumer debt plus a mortgage that they will never be clear. Often a family needs two incomes just to make payments on their debt which is often in excess of three times their annual income. I call this poverty when people live from paycheck to paycheck. Americans only appear to be rich. As the song says "They owe their soul to the company store."

All this nice income goes out in debt payments. Living large usually means living leveraged. One hiccup and its off to bankruptcy court.

We here, alot of us don't pay much debt , unless your a big time gambler or one of those people trying to imitate Americans. People are too scared to loan lots of money here since having large debt usually equals humiliation. Push that aside, Muslim law comes in, if you have debt, you can't go to the Afterlife until a family member pays your debt. People here pay alot of things in cash, except for homes where the buyer can't afford it in cash straight up. My family owns a 10x28m piece of land and is halfway through buying an apartment. Even if you decide to mortgage, you have to pay some upfront money.

So, if Americans are technically unable to afford things, why do they buy it in the first place? Why do they buy 250k exurb (mc)mansions instead of 130k ranches/townhomes that are often placed closer to jobs? Well, 1960s ranches might be a bit boring and shoddy while townhomes are extremely narrow, but they're cheaper and doesn't need much fuel for commuting. I don't see a problem if your a New Yorker commuting from Bayonne(a traditionally working class area) compared to Connecticut(upscale but same in price compared to Bayonne). If your a Houstonian, why live in western suburbs of Houston when you work in the east?

What do Americans have to deal with the working class? Canadians don't really have such rifts but Americans? Drugs? Isn't it much easier to deal drugs in a gated community where police won't go? Gangs? Well they don't really exist outside of ghettos like Bronx. Your kids? I don't see much difference between suburban schools and city schools. Robbery and theft? While it won't happen in gated communities it won't happen in working class areas since there is not much to rob, specially if you disguise that you're working class.

A ledger that is supposedly possible

-Family income deducted taxes= 70k

-House= 140k (paid in 4 years, 35k/year)

-Hyundai= 15k (really fuel efficient)

The first 2 years of family life, you should stay with your parents, since at that time peroid you haven't have kids yet. At this time, save up on everything and buy a cheap fuel efficient car like an Elantra. After 2 years where you have saved up around half your house's value, buy a house. This way you won't need long term mortgages for 10-15 something years. Between those years, there is a certain chance of the economy going sour or something bad happens, so atleast you have some backup. Ignore the realtor if he laughs, since totally owning the house before 5 years is better and more rewarding.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Here at the grocery store I work for, we have a fuel program that is 'supposed' to be a good deal. For every $100 you spend, you'll get .10 cents off per gallon of gas (Spend $200, get 20 cents, $400, 40 cents, and so on). You can save up to $1 per gallon IF you spend $1,000. The problem is that you can only use it once, our previous program you could get up to 4 fill-ups.

So, someone like me who only spends about $200 to $300 per month, I'd get .20/.30 cents off if I waited till the end of the month. Otherwise, I'd get more like .10 cents off.

The ads that are running for this new and amazing program like to tout that you can save UP TO $1 per gallon, but they will never disclose what it will cost to get to that coveted mark.

Feel free to call corporate headquarters and voice your displeasure, they will never listen to me.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Up here in the frozen north where gas prices are higher, you can get a free coupon from Canadian Tire valid at their gas bars in most sets of weekend flyers. These coupons are good anytime, but have to be turned in with the purchase.

Then, of course, there is Canadian Tire Money, which are discount coupons on purchases which can be used any time in the stores, but not, I think, in the gas bar. At the moment I have a staggering forty cents in these coupons. CTC wanted to get out of coupon banking a few years back and discovered, to their dismay, that it has become a national institution, and their customers wouldn't stand for it. I am sure this little loyalty program costs them a bundle, but they made their bed, but now must lie in this procrustean frame. My heart bleeds (ice water).

[zahrul3 471]

I live in a country where people are taught against consumerism during junior high, so they simply doesn't work or only work on the less intellegent demographic. Alot of things are massively cheaper than in the US or stuff, the income has risen sharply but the only items that had a meaningful price rise is chilli and top-notch rice.

They still subsidise gas and diesel here in most locations except Jakarta. 70% of indonesian diesel is biodiesel, you have alot of explanation when you have massive stock of surplus rice stalks and corn, which is usually made into biodiesel. Other sources come from oil palm(where exports of them decreased coz of meaningless health scares), jatropha and dung.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Part of the problem is the difference in what is available today versus several decades ago. A few years ago, I was looking at my nephew's playstation. Adding up the cost of the system itself and all of the games, there was easily $300 worth of stuff there.

As a kid, I didn't have any $300 toys. We weren't poor; we were typical middle class. $300 toys simply did not exist. or, if they did, no one had the expectation that they should have one. That was something for snobby rich people.

Now, kids feel deprived if they don't have at least one gaming system, an ipod, and a cell phone that surfs the internet. This stuff costs money.

The bar has been raised as to what is considered to be normal. Many people wind up going into debt reaching the higher expectations.

and, no, I'm not saying that a ipod is going to break the bank and that only the younger generation has bought into this trap. That's just an example.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The judiciary has been known to call advertising "mere puffing". Of recent decades, it has become a puff adder. (As many puns as you like intended).

  Edited May 12, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[penguin1634 43]

Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Ke$ha are all terrible pop artists who will be gone within the next few years. Thats the problem with pop artists, they get huge support from record companies, which in turn brainwash the public to love these losers, then become the most hated people on earth. (Ex:

2005- "Holy Crap! It's the Backstreet Boys!"

Following years- "Who are they?" or "Wow, they suck!"

Now- "OMG! Lady Gaga!"

Later- "Who cares about her? She sucks!")

I can't stand all this! Why do people somehow find corporate sponsored music good?

And Barbarossa, ignore the wacky points I made up there. I was tired and crabby when I made them and they don't really make a whole lot of sense...

[airman15 4,111]

I can't stand all this! Why do people somehow find corporate sponsored music good?

And Barbarossa, ignore the wacky points I made up there. I was tired and crabby when I made them and they don't really make a whole lot of sense...

Because in the eyes of a corporation, consumers are like sheep. This means that The company can tell the public anything and they will automatically believe it. The company can declare anything "cool", and consumers will follow like sheep. Unfortunaletly crap like this has dumbbed down many people, including tainting US and UK culture. And the worst part about it is, if you say anything against what companies deemed cool, the ones who follow will get upset and try to defend it, even though a majority of the people who have heard about it dislike it. For example, I once said in class that pop music and rap were horrible. Then some of my classmates looked over and said stuff like "No it doesn't!" or "You're mean!", one of them even booed me. But the sad thing is, those are the only genres of music I ever hear at school. I don't get to listen to Rock or Grunge because everybody would rather listen to god-awful music. And it's true for most genres of music in that same field- It has an unpleasant rhythm, the way voices are edited is irritating and the artists on the hole don't have any talent.

[EyeofMobius 27]

A radio commercial which has raised my ire finishes with this slogan: "Now, being lazy isn't just easy, it's also cool."

@Zahrul3: It sounds decent to live in a country where cash purchases are the norm. In North America it is easier to pay with credit cards than it is with debit cards. Paying with cash is almost more restricted than paying with credit with limits on bill size accepted. IIRC in the US there are seizure laws that enable police forces to seize anything they deem as possibly being bought from or bought for illegal activity. This was most devestating on people of farms and rural communites who were accustomed to making deals in cash. A farmer would go to a machinery dealership and try to buy something outright with cash and the police would find out, seize the cash and in some case the machine but would never lay charges and never return the seized property. People were arrested detained and had all of their belongins seized for showing up at the airport and buying a ticket somewhere with cash. I dont think it is like this in Canada but cash is consistently harder to use and we are constantly being bombarded with fear of being robbed for carrying around cash.

I am happy to live debt free since I have refused to get myself into payment plans. I have a single credit card to which I keep the limit at a minimum with hawklike monitoring of the company for when they try to make changes; the only reason I have it is really to make reservations and rent things that I can use but won't use very often. My bills are few and easy to pay off so I really only buy things when I have the money ready to drop at the time. Credit card companies, banks and other peddlers of debt balloons hound me though.

[Meg 368]

The company can declare anything "cool", and consumers will follow like sheep.

It doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes a company will declare something to be cool and the next greatest thing and people do not follow like sheep.

One case is Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Before that movie was released everyone was carrying on about it being an instant classic and how Roger was going to be a cultural icon like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. How many people here have heard of him?

From a technical standpoint,, the movie itself is worth watching. It was released back in 1988 before a lot of the fancy CGI was around. It has cartoons interacting with the real world. That has been done before but this time they had shadows and left footprints and you could see real world objects move when they interacted with them. It was fun to watch.

Problem was, the character of Roger Rabbit is just plain annoying. When he was talking, everyone just wanted him to shut up. We were supposed to embrace this character but everyone wanted him to go away instead.

Personally, I chalk that up to the guy who did the voice. I saw him doing several interviews in his Roger Rabbit voice. He was definitely abrasive. Not something you want in a cartoon character.

The technical people who put a lot of work into the movie must have been very disappointed. and the marketing people saw everything just fall flat. People did not buy it like sheep.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Its still a classic movie evenif RRabbit was anoying.

[airman15 4,111]

The company can declare anything "cool", and consumers will follow like sheep.

It doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes a company will declare something to be cool and the next greatest thing and people do not follow like sheep.

One case is Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Before that movie was released everyone was carrying on about it being an instant classic and how Roger was going to be a cultural icon like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. How many people here have heard of him?

From a technical standpoint,, the movie itself is worth watching. It was released back in 1988 before a lot of the fancy CGI was around. It has cartoons interacting with the real world. That has been done before but this time they had shadows and left footprints and you could see real world objects move when they interacted with them. It was fun to watch.

Problem was, the character of Roger Rabbit is just plain annoying. When he was talking, everyone just wanted him to shut up. We were supposed to embrace this character but everyone wanted him to go away instead.

Personally, I chalk that up to the guy who did the voice. I saw him doing several interviews in his Roger Rabbit voice. He was definitely abrasive. Not something you want in a cartoon character.

The technical people who put a lot of work into the movie must have been very disappointed. and the marketing people saw everything just fall flat. People did not buy it like sheep.

I have seen the movie, and it is one of my favorites. I see your point, but when i last replied I was really talking about the bad music (and the influence it has) that seems to plague my school. I don't like it because I grew up with grunge, rock and metal. The biggest problems I have with pop music is that I'm forced to listen to it during lunch and all the little kids (and disturbingly some of my classmates) running around acting like gangsters and talking about how "awesome" the ghetto is really annoys me. Thats what I was trying to say when I said "The company can declare anything cool and consumers will follow like sheep".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@usfighter15: On the subject of music available in the mob.

Not everyone is poisoned by the current genre. Pop music is like fashion, and it goes in and out so quickly you wonder if it was ever there. I have generally eclectic taste in music, but the raucous stuff that is "pop" right now raises my hackles. People like Lady GaGa are fashionable flashes in the pan, but they do not result in any kind of deafening report.

I grew up with Big Band music as the popular genre with people like Kay Kaiser and Guy Lombardo. It was wartime, and Vera Lynn was very popular, as was Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra. All the girls wore Bobby Sox, saddle shoes and swooned over Frankie.

After the war, even during it, an eight-to-the-bar genre was growing out of the jazz scene. This turned into rock'n'roll at the same time as folk music was on the upswing. It was definitely the age of Aquarius.

A lot of current music is, for want of a better word, black ghetto music. However it has nothing to do with the superb jazz scene that brought black musicians to the fore. This genre grew out of the great depression, and it is still around.

Music is confused right now. It happens every thirty years or so. The sure sign that this is so is a sudden reversion to the classical era of J. S. Bach. If you listen, you will hear more and more tunes that were originally written by that great master. Since all of his work is in the public domain, no one needs to acknowledge it, but it is there.

Bach was known only to professional musicians before Mendelssohn popularized him with a series of concerts at the turn of the twentieth century, when there was a huge upsurge of his music coincident with the end of the post-romantics. The next thing was the growth of the twentieth century popular genre based on Vaudeville and Musical Shows, which carried on until after the war. Overlapping this was the Victorian phenomenon of Gilbert and Sullivan, the topsy-turvy musicals based on silly but entertaining premises. Still around by the way.

So, do not despair. Music will find its way. It always does. Once the garbage has cleared away, the old song will resume. In a new form, and with a new voice, but not the garbage to which we both object.

Watch for a flashback to George Gershwin and Jerome Kern. This is the real indicator. In the U.K. you'll start seeing revivals of Ivor Novello and Richard Addinsell.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Part of the problem is the difference in what is available today versus several decades ago. A few years ago, I was looking at my nephew's playstation. Adding up the cost of the system itself and all of the games, there was easily $300 worth of stuff there.

As a kid, I didn't have any $300 toys. We weren't poor; we were typical middle class. $300 toys simply did not exist. or, if they did, no one had the expectation that they should have one. That was something for snobby rich people.

Now, kids feel deprived if they don't have at least one gaming system, an ipod, and a cell phone that surfs the internet. This stuff costs money.

The bar has been raised as to what is considered to be normal. Many people wind up going into debt reaching the higher expectations.

and, no, I'm not saying that a ipod is going to break the bank and that only the younger generation has bought into this trap. That's just an example.

My youngest cousins are already hooked onto gaming systems like heroin. When they come to visit my Dad and Stepmom, all they want to do is play XBox, nevermind there is an ocean 20 minutes away. My dad told me that on a trip to Disney World/Universial in Florida all my cousins did was whine and complain. I think if I were there my reaction would be something like: 'You're in the Happiest Place on Earth, BE HAPPY!'. In a 180 Degree reversal, my cousins on my Stepmom's side don't have Playstations or Xboxes and they are all about the outdoors.