Almost all who favor taking conservative action to prevent existential catastrophe nevertheless accede to the allied ideas that “consumer” is a valid word for product-users and that we live in a “consumer culture” governed by “consumerism.”
This concession is itself pretty catastrophic, as we here at TCT have been trying to point out for fifteen years now.
Want an illustration? Consider this graphic:
Now, try to explain the reality shown there in terms of “consumerism” and “consumer culture.” You can’t, because the facts in question utterly contradict those very concepts.
Apple has touched off a pretty major row in the halls of marketing. Apparently, the next version of its Safari browser will restrict the creation and retention of “cookies,” which are little computer codes that allow big businesses to collect increasingly rich data, without acknowledgement or permission, on internet users. Why Apple is expressing this glint of conscience is an interesting question. Far more interesting and important, though, is what the now-brewing fight confirms about the nature of big business marketing.
If you doubt that, take a look at the big advertising trade groups’ “Open Letter” to Apple. Here’s the operative paragraph:
Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful. Put simply, machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choice; they represent browser-manufacturer choice. As organizations devoted to innovation and growth in the consumer economy, we will actively oppose any actions like this by companies that harm consumers by distorting the digital advertising ecosystem and undermining its operations.
Let’s translate this passage from marketing-speak into truth, shall we?:
Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handedindependent approach is bad forreflective of consumer* choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers lovetolerate. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and usefulit harder for corporations to harvest the data they need to keep manipulating people’s “free time” experiences. Put simply, Apple’s proposed machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choicemarketers’ existing dictates; they represent browser-manufacturer choiceinternet users’ clear, strongly-held preferences and best interests. As organizations devoted to innovation and growth in the consumer economymicro-managing off-the-job behavior on behalf of the corporate overclass, we will actively oppose any actions like this by companies that harm consumerscorporate investors by distorting the digital advertising ecosystem and undermining its operations.
“The American Dream” trope exists to implant the notion that this is a unique nation that is uniquely dedicated to the greatest happiness of all its residents. That claim is pure rubbish.
Yet, it turns out that when people are asked what they want “the American Dream” to mean, the clear majority give rather decent answers:
Of course, the actual society, being rigidly dedicated to making the rich ever richer, is dreadful at fulfilling these majority desires. But more proof that the commoners aren’t the dolts so many greens and lefties assume.
Jules Polonetsky is executive director of the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry-supported privacy group whose supporters include Acxiom, Facebook and Mastercard Worldwide.
It’s a group that exists, in other words, to make sure PR heads off actual laws.
Here’s what Don Quixote Polonetsky promises his fair Dulcinea, per Advertising Age:
[T]he Future of Privacy Forum worked with U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, and leading mobile location analytics companies to develop a code of conduct that encourages responsible use of in-store technology to improve the shopping experience [TCT: ROFL!] while respecting user privacy. This code can be [TCT: How?] enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, and provides strong [TCT: ROFL again] requirements:
Ensure consumers are not personally identified unless they expressly consent
Create a central Do Not Track site where consumers can permanently opt-out if they wish
Post conspicuous signage in bricks-and-mortar locations so consumers are aware of the use of location technology
These technologies offer some exciting opportunities to maximize convenience for consumers and to help them get the best prices. They all rely on using mobile data in new ways, and all can raise concerns if not handled properly.
Stores are faced with a choice: They can keep quiet about these new technologies while implementing minimal privacy protections, or they can be up-front and conspicuous about how mobile data is being used and proactively define its tangible benefits to consumers. The former risks alienating consumers, while the latter gives retailers the opportunity to build their brand, trust, and deepen relationships with customers.
Golly, I wonder which route “stores” will take…
Meanwhile, notice what is really being suppressed here either way — the public will. Even if all “stores” were to adopt Polo’s code, is there any doubt that a huge swath of shoppers would end up getting duped into allowing the supposedly “good” things proposed by this front group?
Just as they can’t tell when there’s a downslope, and read flat lines as downslopes, so do liberals think 7% is zero.
Here is an important chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
The only possible reading of these data is that capital always wins, and has been winning bigger since the ongoing Carter/Reagan Restoration began. But notice: Even in the supposed Golden Age of alleged equality, labor’s compensation growth rate was only 93% of its productivity growth rate. And remember, too, that productivity growth is based on final sales, not just worker pay, so each percentage point of growth there yields a larger absolute amount of money than does any corresponding growth of employee compensation. Hence, even if the growth rate of wages were equal to the productivity growth rate, capitalists would still be winning. But such equality has never existed in the USA since the end of World War II. Even in its supposed heyday, labor was clearly and substantially losing the race.
The plain fact is that the only time in the corporate capitalist epoch that inequality has not grown was World War II, when the state ran the economy and full employment existed.