Notes on the text
"The meaning of a product mostly comes from marketing and is subsequently reinforced by the social environment" (Reference)
Boyd starts by discussing how our identities are impacted by the goods we consume. Without goods we would "be unable to use them as a basis of categorisation and comparison, and in turn establish our own and others' identities" (Reference). By this, Boyd is saying that we base our own worth and classification of our role in societies class structure by what we own. (explain further) This could expand to mean we assume people are not good enough, developed from what brands they indulge in and what else they consume; or don't consume. We give symbolic meaning and 'interactionism' to goods, even giving them 'human characteristics' (Aaker, 1997; Plummer, 1985) to reinforce their symbolised meaning.
Everything needs to be balanced for the consumerist cycle to work. The Marketing Mix is something to consider here: as Promotion, Price, Place (and of course, Product) all needs to be in harmony for a brand message to be fully perceived. (example of why this is so) For example, if a high end product with a high end price tag was positioned in Primark with little or no promotion then that brand would take a dive as the consumer interaction would not be there; the marketing mix would be an incorrect fit. Boyd explains how symbolic interactionism is 'continually modified by human interaction' and code symbols to have shared meanings, therefore market associated connotations to the broadest possible target audience. In addition to this, Mead (1934) says that "a lot of the time the symbols are constructed through continuous social activities" (reference) which help in print them to our human psyche. Greenwald (1980) provides a similar argument by saying that "the social activities are then used by individuals to reconstruct and express who they are, as well as to decide what others are like, all of which happens subconsciously".
The theory of "symbolic interactionism" solely depends on us "viewing ourselves from the perception of others" (Reference). Without onlooking at ourselves, how do we see how others perceive us?
"This has lead to the speculation that the symbolic meanings of products and brands can act as tools for make-believe identities". Dittmar (1992) altered the original theory as brands now play such a critical part "in how people respond socially to others".
Children learn early on the significance of material possessions, and how people respond to them when showing off the objects they own ('those kids who have lots of toys have a lot of friends' Boyd p.59)
By presenting an advertisement in a particular way, the styling and aesthetic of the models connote particular subcultures. Advertising can then give the consumer 'easy solutions' to reach their social ideal- simply buy all of these products and you will become just like them. This all stems from Social Identity Theory, in which we need to 'define who we are' and become part of a group/ commonality of some kind. It seems the essence of being a person is just trying to figure out who they are and where they fit in society. Boyd discusses how people use brands to 'differentiate themselves from others by using' their brands to 'demonstrate a commonality with groups in which they belong' - siting Jenkins (1996).
Self-Fuffiling Prophecy
When exploring 'self fulfilling prophecy', Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted a famous study in 1968, where school children were given a 'bloomer' or 'non-bloomer' label. The 'assumptions about [the] individual affect how we interact with them and after time the individual will also change their behaviour in line with the expectations' (Boyd, p63). Rosenthal and Jacobson concluded there are three steps to self fulfilling prophecy, all leading to the individual acknowledging their 'ideal', or often societies ideal, and 'subsequently behaving in line with [those] expectations'.
300 word summary
No comments:
Post a Comment