Concerning the "Merchants of Cool" I have a few thoughts. The first deals with those trying to discover what is cool. In the video it mentioned how the point of marketing to teens is being able to prove that you can speak their language. That is a key factor. Do any of us listen to someone speaking in a language that we can't understand, in general? Also, I know that the class broke out laughing when this was said in the video, but it does have merit for its meaning: "Tare like Africa." It's funny, but the point is that the people marketing to us want to conquer us, more specifically, they want to conquer our minds, and they want to be able to have control of our desires so that they can make a profit.
Another thought that I had concerns the "ordinary kid" that was interviewed at his house. How do they define "ordinary?" That really puzzled me. Any thoughts?
Finally, a note on culture. The fact that this video is from the 90s really intrigues me. It is interesting to see what was scandalous and shocking in the 90s, because, in reality, that's part of our culture now. Yes, it may seem different, to a certain extent, but we have been completely drawn in and numbed to what once was considered "bad." A thought on human nature: do kids like to see on TV what they can't do themselves? Is that some subconscious way of appeasing a hidden alter ego? (Here I'm referring to vanity, sex, and violence-- it seems like these qualities are highly encouraged in the media.) As I just mentioned, we have become numb to what, in the 90s, was considered bad. The media is constantly trying to keep our interest by topping the last scandal with something more scandalous, for example.
Any thoughts?
(Emily T.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
To answer your first question, YES we (or maybe just I) sometimes listen to someone speaking in a language we can't understand. Of course, we won't be able to understand what is actually being said, but we may still listen. But perhaps I am the only one who enjoys eavesdropping on a conversation between two Europeans speaking another language. (It's interesting to hear what other languages sound like, at least for me.)
In terms of the word "ordinary" from "Merchants of Cool", I think that what was meant is a teenager who is not inclined to start a new trend, or perhaps one who is more "conformist" than "individualist" when it comes to teen culture.
Lastly, I'm afraid I need a little clarification as to what you mean by "bad"; I'm slightly confused about the last part of your post. I think I agree with the general idea you are trying to convey, but could you maybe elaborate a little? Thanks :)
(Janet Lee)
To comment on your last part. Now that I think about it, it does seem like that. As Taylor said in class today, "we get bored easily." Imagine that we are the bugs and the merchants are the people who put out bug zappers. We become curious when we see the light(the things that we aren't allowed to do) and go to investigate, but once we get too close, we're dead.
I don't think that marketers control our desires as much as they add fuel to or show us what we want. When you buy something, you're usually buying into a lifestyle brand (Apple, Target, whatever).
I'm particularly against the implication that we are all blind sheep led around by marketers playing God/the shepherd. As a consumer, YOU are the one that makes the choice to buy the product. If you buy something with all fancy packaging and no substance, it's partially your fault. Besides, making a profit and giving consumers something useful isn't always an either or situation...
Do marketers really need to appeal to us? Sure the way they advertise may appeal to us, but in the end, is it our decision? I don't know about everyone else, but I am not financially independent of my parents when it comes to luxury items. I think most "ordinary" kids aren't. However, I can't simply pull a My Super Sweet Sixteen and say "Mommy/Daddy I want..." and get it. The product has to be something that my parents would approve of. So then wouldn't the product/lifestyle have to be something marketable to adults as well. And since many of us need the approval of our parents, aren't they the ultimate decision makers? We just have to have some want for the item. I think this is what makes us ordinary. We do not have the independence to start trends, but we have the ability to follow acceptable ones.
I am still trying to understand this whole scandal thing. It seems that women have been presented as the driving force behind scandal these days and the majoriy of scandal revolves around sex. (Britney wearing next to nothing...) But how? Women are supposed to basically sell their sex. But how do you sell a woman her own flesh? How does that help sell a product? Doesn't it do the opposite? (I'm talking about the female "buyers". Selling their flesh to others is by no means a hard task.) Our immunity has come from being presented with this scandal over and over again, but I simply don't understand how they can continue to sell us nothing at all, but sell us a product at the same time.
Lastly. A quote I'd heard a few times popped into my head during class. "Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everybody I've ever known." Is this really (dare I say it) true? Does this prove the effetiveness of today's marketing?
Emily, I, too, was skeptical about the definition of "ordinary" which applied to the young man that was visited by the MTV media specialists.
What if a closet full of khaki pants is not my definiton of ordinary?
"Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everybody I've ever known." An interesting quote, indeed..
The question we need to ask is this: Is anything considered unique anymore? Humans have walked the earth for so long and have experienced so many phenomena, that is anything purely original any longer? Is it possible that every possible emotion has been felt, that every possible action has been taken at least once in the past thousands of years.
I say this, and then I second-guess myself once more. According to Hayakawa, no two contexts are ever identical. That throws off my whole argument, does it not?
(Sam Maliha)
To your last comment, Sam, I don't think you're contradicting yourself because emotions categorize, they are not necessarily specific. If I say I am angry, or happy, or sad, you get the general idea. You may not know exactly how I'm feeling, but the more specific I get with my description, the less likely that you have felt the same emotion. I do agree that the same exact (italics) emotion can never be felt twice, because two situations/causes for the emotion are never exaclty the same. My point is that the same general emotion is felt and there are certain situations that elicit certain types of emotion.
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment