A commercial that promotes the worst of today

[LizzieMaine]

No. I do not destroy things in good working order to replace them with new, trendy things that I can't afford that would require me to buy on credit.

I admit to being very confused how you believe that modern consumerism is a form of individuality? And how is it that loving things from an earlier era is somehow devoid of individuality?

I think there's a confusion here between individuality, the idea of cultivating one's own tastes -- and individualism, the philosophy that teaches that the desires of the individual are more important than the needs of society as a whole. Not the same thing at all, and the former is far less dangerous than the latter.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's an example of a need that can be filled cheaply as opposed to spending entirely too much: I find that these Mach 3 and Fusion 4, and blah blah whathaveyou razors do me no favors - they cut my skin, they leave me feeling raw and they cost a fortune. So one day, I stopped into a downtown antique store, purchased 1 screw-top double edged safety razor for $3. I then popped into Wal-Mart and picked up a 10 pack of double edged razors for $1.50. For a grand total of $4.50, I can get at least 10 great shaves that don't leave me miserable. For $6, I can get 20 or more shaves. Or, for the going rate of 12 Fusion cartridges at $36, I can purchase 120 blades.

Remember that Saturday Night Live parody from the mid-seventies that made fun of the whole idea of the disposable twin-bladed razor by proposing a razor with four blades? And remember how everybody laughed because they could see how ridiculous the concept was and and how dumb people would have to be to fall for such an idiotic marketing campaign?

Who's laughing now?

Seriously, this whole society needs to be sat down and forced to read Vance Packard until they understand what a bunch of dupes they are.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm not suggesting that you would. :-/



Consumerism is sold on the notion of expressing your individual inner self, rather than receiving and being custodian of an identity from your forebears. We can express consumerism through "vintage" goods by taking the same "discard what came before" stance ourselves (and indeed encouraging it then in the next generation who are told to discard what you offer them as they "express their own individual inner identity".

Consumerism is sold on the notion of keeping up with the Jonses which is far from selling individuality.

 

[William Stratford]

Consumerism is sold on the notion of keeping up with the Jonses which is far from selling individuality.

It works on individuality by selling the idea of goods expressing your individual inner personality. This is a new invention, where before taste was to do with behaving appropriately. "keeping up with the Jones'" comes from that "expressing your individual inner personality" because it is based on the idea that you need the goods to correctly express your inner state in relation to others.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It works on individuality by selling the idea of goods expressing your individual inner personality. This is a new invention, where before taste was to do with behaving appropriately. "keeping up with the Jones'" comes from that "expressing your individual inner personality" because it is based on the idea that you need the goods to correctly express your inner state in relation to others.

Then according to this logic, buying things according to appropriateness means one had to buy the "right" things to express their adherence to taste and custom so again, "guilty" of the same thing.

I buy things that I/my personality is attracted to rather than seeing it as an expression of it.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I think there's a confusion here between individuality, the idea of cultivating one's own tastes -- and individualism, the philosophy that teaches that the desires of the individual are more important than the needs of society as a whole. Not the same thing at all, and the former is far less dangerous than the latter.

Yes, I mean it like the former and not the latter.

 

[Noirblack]

Certainly, if we stopped buying things indefinitely, there would be a few folks out of business. But, for the sake of argument, let's say we didn't buy something to replace something else, or just because our old model was outdated, or because a new product looked nice, or made us fit in. What would happen? Would the wheels of industry grind to a halt?

Here's an example of a need that can be filled cheaply as opposed to spending entirely too much: I find that these Mach 3 and Fusion 4, and blah blah whathaveyou razors do me no favors - they cut my skin, they leave me feeling raw and they cost a fortune. So one day, I stopped into a downtown antique store, purchased 1 screw-top double edged safety razor for $3. I then popped into Wal-Mart and picked up a 10 pack of double edged razors for $1.50. For a grand total of $4.50, I can get at least 10 great shaves that don't leave me miserable. For $6, I can get 20 or more shaves. Or, for the going rate of 12 Fusion cartridges at $36, I can purchase 120 blades.

Now if everyone suddenly stopped purchasing the ridiculously priced Fusion razors and replaced them with the cheap double edged razors, would industry decline into a sad-faced clown party? Or would Gillette perhaps consider selling cheaper razors to meet demand?

Simply purchasing based on need, rather than boredom, does not ruin an economy. It makes it stronger.

In this case, P&G would not be selling the expensive Fusion blades. They would make less margin than before if they ramped up production of traditional blades. Also, the retailers would make less margin. It wouldn't bring the world of commerce to an end, but it would have a slight effect on the overall GDP. In addition P&G would be letting people go. The retailers would be letting people go. That's more people who suddenly have less money to spend. I can't see how having more people with less income strengthens the economy. I guess you'd have to ask yourself if it would be good if people sent less money on the products and services that your industry supplies. That will tell you whether it is good for the economy

 

[Angus Forbes]

(double)

 

[Angus Forbes]

One idea from the 1950's was that as productivity increased, and meaningful wants were satisfied, the workweek would fall to 15-20 hours. People could then go on to leisure activities, in the best sense of the word "leisure." Keep the old bathroom, and retire two months earlier, so to speak.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And we all know how that turned out. The Boys from Marketing make sure that as soon as a "want" is satisfied, they create another one out of thin air that's unsatisfied, and so on into perpetuity. Humanity is reduced to existing only as lumps of fuel to be thrown into the giant stinking coke oven that is the Sacred Economy.

 

[Feraud]

Remember that Saturday Night Live parody from the mid-seventies that made fun of the whole idea of the disposable twin-bladed razor by proposing a razor with four blades? And remember how everybody laughed because they could see how ridiculous the concept was and and how dumb people would have to be to fall for such an idiotic marketing campaign?

Who's laughing now?

Seriously, this whole society needs to be sat down and forced to read Vance Packard until they understand what a bunch of dupes they are.

Yes I remember it very well.
Multi-ege razors are the perfect analogy to show how stupid this society is. "Sell them more of the same product and convince them it it is doing three times the job!" Idiots..

 

[ButteMT61]

Such a non-judegemental group here...very enlightening. I like those razors so I MUST BE a dupe, rube, fool, chump, moron...I'm sure there's more. The original gist of the thread was totally valid, but it's gone down the tubes. Remember that next time someone snickers at your retro outfit/hair/car.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Such a non-judegemental group here...very enlightening. I like those razors so I MUST BE a dupe, rube, fool, chump, moron...I'm sure there's more. The original gist of the thread was totally valid, but it's gone down the tubes. Remember that next time someone snickers at your retro outfit/hair/car.

I hope nothing I said insulted you.

 

[ButteMT61]

I hope nothing I said insulted you.

No, PSG! I don't get insulted or offended. Just trying to make a point. I think the thread was going to negative and judgmental is all.You're cool!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

No, PSG! I don't get insulted or offended. Just trying to make a point. I think the thread was going to negative and judgmental is all.You're cool!

Good.

(I am very judgmental towards bad advertising!)

 

[LizzieMaine]

When modern consumer culture stops being stupid, I'll stop being judgemental about it.

 

[Yeps]

Yes I remember it very well.
Multi-ege razors are the perfect analogy to show how stupid this society is. "Sell them more of the same product and convince them it it is doing three times the job!" Idiots..

Um... the multi-blade disposable razors really are much better. I mean, as far as disposable razors go. Sure, safety razors and straight razors may be better, but if the choice is between a one or two blade disposable and one of the fancy newer ones with 4 or 5 blades, I will definitely go with the new. (Electric razors, on the other hand, are horrible.)

 

[rue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rP2_8FhGvN8

That's right. Destroy a lovely vintage bathroom in excellent condition for new and improved ugly banality.

Ugh..... I stopped watching HGTV because of renovations like this.

 

[rue]

When modern consumer culture stops being stupid, I'll stop being judgemental about it.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[Feraud]

If one good blade doesn't do the job I've a multi-blade kitchen knife franchise I'd like to sell you. I'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for good measure too..