Big business marketing was a trillion-dollar-a-year juggernaut by the early 1990s. It is almost certainly now a TWO-trillion-dollar-a-year juggernaut.
Big business marketing provides almost all the money for commercial television, which remains far and away the #1 shaper of people’s “free time,” mental databanks, and worldviews in the United States.
Contrary to academic jibber-jab about the complexity of “reading” advertisements, ,as a communications-maker, big business marketing operates almost exclusively via these 4 classic coercive behavior alteration tactics:
1. Lies (of both commission and omission)
4. Brain-Conditioning (think Pavlov and his use of repetition and titillation to reform mental agendas)
Marketing is now so dominant, these tactics have come to govern not just the ads and promotions, but the actual TV shows, as well. These days, very few prime-time TV shows are NOT 100% intentional button-pushers, with underlying dramatic designs taken wholly from corporate marketers’ radically shriveled and demeaning approach to audiences.
Big business marketing is an extension of scientific management, a.k.a. “Taylorism,” into the realm of off-the-job activities. Due to the success of corporate capitalism at its cardinal function — maximizing property and upper-management incomes — big business marketing also has to work harder and bigger with each passing year, in order to find and “convert” more customers. It is a virulent social cancer, in other words.
The latest metastasis is called “shopper marketing.”
This is the use of hidden cameras, infrared scanners, RFID-tagged shopping carts, and other sensors to do to in-store shoppers what Taylor did to in-factory workers: careful recording and study of profit-related human behaviors:
“Shopper marketing” is now the fastest growing component of corporate salesmanship. It is described by Evan Schuman:
The main objective of all of this, however, has little to do with IT and everything to do with Marketing. From a publishing advertising perspective, Web sites have a wide range of metrics (pageviews, click-throughs, exit- and entry-pages, etc.), print publishers have focus group-like surveys (Starch, among others) and television has Nielsen and other ratings. But among the biggest sellers of advertisements in the world are retail chains. Every promo that is placed in an aisle, every display, every premium product placement, these all generate substantial revenue for retailers and yet there are virtually no ways for retailers or consumer goods manufacturers to know how many eyeballs they are getting for any placement in any aisle. The retailers involved were quick to applaud the effort. Stephen Quinn, senior vice president of marketing, Wal-Mart, issued a statement that the effort was a good first step. “This study has tremendous importance for retailers,” Quinn said. “Informed by the sophisticated data that this new metric will provide, retailers, for the very first time, now can consider new store layouts and product adjacencies to create an in-store experience that is more relevant, and thus, even more satisfying.” A big part of the number-crunching for this trial involves matching the data collected in the aisles with POS checkout figures. Although Hoyt get into the details of the POS data is integrated with the aisle-counter data, it will deliver a ratio of “the number of eyeballs that went by a particular promotion” versus “the number of purchases of products from that aisle.” As promotions are added, removed and changed, retailers and manufacturers would theoretically be able to see how those ratios change. Hoyt said that the number and position of the infrared sensors can help isolate particular segments or brands. “You have to frame an area,” he said. “A sensor at one end of the aisle would be able to track the traffic for that entire aisle” but additional sensors could track just, for example, Band-Aids. The ability for this group to be able to announce so many major players is crucial as this effort will ultimately have little value if it’s not widely—or even universally—accepted. “Our objective is to deliver a metric that will become an industry standard,” Hoyt said. “For retailers, the big ‘Aha’ has everything to do with finally be able to understand where (consumers) go and how they move throughout the stores. This will help us determine better adjacencies.” Procter & Gamble is identified as the study’s presenting sponsor, 3M, Coca-Cola, Walt Disney, Kellogg’s and Miller Brewing are listed as co-sponsors while “supporting retailers” are Albertsons, Kroger, Walgreens and Wal-Mart (the release even listed the retailers alphabetically. Sorry, Wal-Mart). One key marketing point of the group is that “this metric can forecast traffic and unduplicated impressions with a very high degree of accuracy” and that “accurate chain-wide projections are possible by suing this metric and data from a limited samples of stores.” The group’s analytical package is called PRISM, standing for “Pioneering Research for an In-Store Metric.”
Advertising Age, on whose subscriber website articles on the topic are presently the top two most-emailed items, reports further:
Senior executives from the world’s biggest advertiser, biggest retailer and biggest media-buying agency turned up at the In-Store Marketing Expo in Chicago last week to tout a new way of measuring shopper marketing by the world’s biggest research firm, Nielsen Co. It was just one more milestone for shopper marketing, which is growing faster than internet advertising — doubling since 2004 and on pace for a compound annual growth rate of 21% through 2010, according to a draft study by Deloitte from the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Shopper marketing is a new medium as important as the internet, mobile or gaming,” declared Starcom MediaVest Group North America CEO Renetta McCann at the announcement of pilot results using Nielsen In-Store’s Prism initiative, essentially a ratings system for in-store media and marketing that measures reach and frequency similar to TV. “It’s a brand-new ballgame, and we’re all in.” The Pioneering Research for an In-Store Metric initiative uses a combination of electronic eyes and human counters to track how many people travel down each aisle in 160 stores representing about 60% of package-goods retail volume to date. Prism also measures what percentage of people who shop in an aisle actually buy something there. It’s the crowning achievement so far of Nielsen CEO David Calhoun’s efforts to connect the pieces of the far-flung research firm to create new services. He likened Nielsen In-Store to his firm’s TV and internet ratings. “It will allow in-store to rightfully take a seat at the marketing table and be considered in an analytical manner consistent with all good marketing and media planning,” he said. “What you can measure, you can manage.”
And there’s the rub: Corporate capitalist normalcy means constant marketing growth.
This means the increasing perfection of market totalitarianism, where a growing array of our “free time” behaviors are increasingly measured and managed on behalf of profit.
“Consumer” is a rotten word, a naked, vision-stunting bias parading as a basic, natural term of modern democratic life. Whenever you hear yourself being called a “consumer,” you should reach for your gun.
Contrary to both mainstream dogma and received cultural-leftist/neo-Marcusian canon, access to commodities has never been anything like equal in the United States. In fact, in this epoch of escalating income and wealth polarity, the newest statistics show that inequality among U.S. “consumers” is now at an all-time high.
Bradley Johnson of Advertising Age magazine’s “American Demographics” column reports:
Spending patterns vary from rich to poor. The government’s latest Consumer Expenditure Survey shows spending by the top fifth of households (pretax income of $85,147-plus) rose 8.1% in 2005 vs. 2004. That’s a bigger percentage boost than for any other income group.
The top fifth collected 50.4% of pretax income and accounted for a record 39% of consumer spending in 2005, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those affluent households outspent the bottom three quintiles combined. Spending disparities have grown: The bottom fifth (pretax income below $17,579) did just 8.2% of 2005’s consumer spending, a record low. (Advertising Age, January 15, 2007, p. 29)
As Johnson also notes, “[t]he affluent account for massive shares of spending in key categories.” In the service of publicizing this reality and helping MR folks rethink “consumption,” I decided to calculate some of the key ratios. The numbers signify the average spending of the richest 20 percent of U.S. households as a percentage of the averages among the poorest 20 percent and the middle 20 percent, respectively, in various “consumer” areas, all for the year 2005.
Housing: the richest quintile spends 3.7 times as much as the poorest; 2.1 times as much as the middle
New Vehicles: the richest quintile spends 19.2 times [not a typo!] as much as the poorest; 3.4 times as much as the middle
Dining Out: the richest quintile spends 4.7 times as much as the poorest; 2.2 times as much as the middle
Life Insurance, Social Security and Pensions: the richest quintile spends 28.8 times [not a typo] as much as the poorest; 3.9 times as much as the middle
Education: the richest quintile spends 4.7 times as much as poorest; 5.7 times [not a typo] as much as the middle
Reading Material: the richest spends 4.7 times as much as the poorest; 2.3 times as much as the middle
Apparel: the richest quintile spends 4.3 times as much as the poorest; 2.4 times as much as the middle
Alcohol: the richest quintile spends 4.6 times as much as the poorest; 2.2 times as much as the middle
Overall “Consumer” Spending: the richest quintile spends 4.7 times as much as the poorest; 2.3 times as much as the middle
As you might guess, there is only one exception to this pattern: tobacco. In that area, the richest quintile spent only 107% of what the poorest quintile spent, and only 74% of what the middle quintile spent.
The same institutional logic that builds intentional racism into big business marketing also builds in intentional sexism. See “Racism in Corporate Marketing” posted below.
The only difference is in the roles portrayed. African-Americans almost always appear in advertising and sponsored shows as athletes, musicians, buffoons, and/or sidekicks. Women appear as mothers, wives, servants, and/or carbon-based blow-up-doll life forms.
The effects on the culture are the same: Subtle and light, yet widely dominant suppression of the chances for further progress in deflating sexist ideology.
I think there are more loopholes and exceptions to sexism than to racism within the marketing juggernaut. Nonetheless, I am convinced that further vanquishment of our legacy of racism and sexism (and also of other bio-fictitious fibs like nationalism) will not occur until we also begin to assail big business marketing and the overclass its serves.