Two items of note on the broad subject of commercial persuasion and consumer decision-making.
First, Marginal Utility points to this Scientific American article about “how making decisions tires your brain.” Essentially the piece cites a number of studies suggesting that “executive function,” a name for a part of the brain involved in decision-making, is sort of like a muscle that gets worn out when used too often, leading to bad decisions even in areas unrelated to whatever realm we wore it out in.
Wow, that was a bad sentence, let’s just try quoting a bit of the article:
University of Minnesota psychologist Kathleen Vohs and colleagues repeatedly demonstrate that the mere act of making a selection may deplete executive resources. For example, in one study the researchers found that participants who made more choices in a mall were less likely to persist and do well in solving simple algebra problems.
Etc. Meanwhile, Wired summarizes research that looked at magic tricks and apparently extracts lessons to “advance our understanding of the brain — and perhaps help inoculate us against advertising.” The underlying article/research is not online, so I can only quote from a bit of Wired’s summation; here’s one interesting bit:
Psychological misdirection. Just as the attention of our eyes can guide, so can the attention of our minds. A casual motion belies its importance to a trick. Heightened suspense muddles the audience’s focus on the mechanics of a routine. The mere mention of a false explanation precludes notice of the real one.
So… to be glib … if commercial persuaders are magicians, and we’re taking in their tricks with exhausted executive-function muscles … how likely is it we make the best decisions?
I’ll leave it to you to sort out what you make of that. Hopefully your brain is less tired than mine.
Not to make excuses, but one reason I’ve been so inconsistent with this site lately (apart from the aforementioned computer trouble) is that I’ve been asked to do a few Q&As related to the book. These take time, but it’s possible that if you like Murketing.com, you’ll find them interesting.
So here’s one I did for Brandweek (which recently ran an excerpt of the book), and here’s one for The Society for Word of Mouth. Interesting? You decide.
In the last bit of book-related news for the week (I swear), the NYT Book Review will finally weigh in this Sunday. You’re on the edge of your seat about that, am I right?
From The Dieline:
My son recently alerted me to a stark new wrapper for Snickers that he found at a Wal-Mart in Tulsa. Not a full-fledged Snicker redesign, I don’t think. Apparently this version of Snickers is a Wal-Mart exclusive. Strikes a lot of people as sort of Soviet-looking.
A comment to the Dieline post suggests its part of a nostalgia promotion. Whatever the explanation, I like it. I also like the concept of a “Wal-Mart exclusive.”
Today I learned about a project called Seen Reading. Julie Wilson explains the premise:
- I see you reading.
- I guesstimate where you are in the book.
- I trip on over to the bookstore and make a note of the text.
- I let my imagination rip.
- Readers become celebrities.
- People get giddy and buy more books
Interesting, no?
I know about it of course because what she saw someone reading most recently was Buying In. Read/listen to results here.
The most interesting bit is what she’s referring to above as “I let my imagination rip.” You have to check it out to understand. Great project.
I haven’t seen Wall-E, but yesterday someone* was telling me about it. I wasn’t taking notes but Wikipedia says much what she was saying about the movie’s plot. (Spoiler alert!) Here’s the context:
In the 22nd century, the megacorporation Buy n Large assumed every economic service on Earth, including the government. Overrun by un-recycled waste, the planet eventually became so polluted that it could no longer support life. In an attempt to keep humanity alive, Buy n Large sponsored a five-year exodus to outer space aboard massive executive starliners…
Etc. Etc. So Wall-E, who I guess is technically a Buy n Large product, eventually saves the day, or whatever.
Anyway, details aside, the point seems to be that a rampant corporation took over the world and didn’t give a rat’s ass about the ecology, and so on: Profit motive runs amok.
So it’s interesting to read that according to Ad Age, this article deconstructing the product-placement style used in the film. Please continue…
“Barack In the Day,” the most amusing of many selections at DemocraticStuff.com. I’m not sure what it has to do with his actual candidacy, but as long as he’s a pop culture figure, why not recontextualize Obama as a sort of campy 70s TV figure? Via On The Ground Looking Up.
It’s been a while since I’ve updated the lengthy roll of links to be on the right-hand side of this page (assuming you’re looking at the Murketing site itself and not the RSS feed).
Here’s what I’ve added today:
I’ve had a couple of things brought to my attention just recently that I’m adding. One will be filed under Critiques, and is called the Consume®econnection Project: “A year-long effort to meet the laborers and craftsmen who build what I buy – and put a human face on consumption.”
Also added to the Critiques section: Buy-By Brian (see Murketing Q&A here) and the Obsessive Branding Disorder blog.
The other blog just brought to my attention is Wasted Food, which belongs to Jonathan Bloom, who
is writing a book on wasted food in America. I’m adding it to the Unconsumption section.
I thought that Sivacracy.net, featuring fellow UT grad Siva Vaidhyanathan among others, was already in the list, but it wasn’t, so now it is, under Various Other Friends. Also added to that section: Curious Capitalist, co-written by Justin Fox of Time Magazine.
To the Artists section, I’ve added Harriete Estel Berman and Valerie Green.
To the Sustenance section, I’ve added The Restricted Foodie, by friend of Murketing Lori Greenberg, “a woman of food, in spite of an insidious array of food allergies.”
I’ve added Mudd Up! to the Music section.
I’m also adding Animal New York. I tend to disagree with their constant slamming of Shepard Fairey and KAWS, among others — but they do have good stuff that I link to all the time. Probably they’ll be annoyed to be in the Brand Underground section … so that’s where it goes. Heh. On a related note I just realized Susannah Breslin/Reverse Cowgirl is contributing to Animal, and although I’d lost touch with her blog, I’m looking at it again and so I added it too, to the Hard To Categorize section. (It’s “Pornographic Coolhunting,” so decide for yourself whether that suggests it will be “safe for work” or whatever.)
Finally, to the Solipsism section, I’ve added my GoodReads profile.
Okay so I’ll just tell you up front this is basically a brief rant about my annoyance with FedEx — a self-indulgent post, but that would seem to be the point of having a site like this, to indulge, no?
So early last week my main computer died, or rather was killed by me, and I badly needed a new one, very quickly. I ordered one up online, and went ahead and sprung for the fastest and of course most expensive shipment option — Fedex Priority. This meant I’d get my machine by 10:30 the next morning. Please continue…
Quasi-follow-up to this post: Looks like there’s one of those tag things going around, asking people to name the five “guiltiest pleasures” on their iPods. (No word on whether Zune loyalists can participate.) Here’s what Marginal Revolution says. Here’s what Asymmetrical Information says.
An interesting music-and-identity moment — essentially you can brag about what you’re not guilty about admitting you like!
The civic crisis sparked by the closer of 600 Starbucks locations rolls on.
The L.A. Times mulls the potential loss of access to lattes in inner-city neighborhoods, a column headlined “A closing Starbucks is a symbol of lost hope and luxury.”
Starbucks is about more than a cup of coffee in many neighborhoods. That block-letter logo on a strip mall marquee can be considered a public stamp of approval, a symbol of hope, a suggestion of brewing economic vitality.
That’s why a new Starbucks in the inner city tends to produce the kind of excitement that suburban neighborhoods reserve for the debut of a Bloomingdale’s….
The writer visits a couple of locations in south L.A. that are on the closure list; neither is doing much business. An inquiry to the company gets her a response about “shareholder value.”
The losers are those loyal customers who considered it a privilege to join the cultural mainstream, sipping overpriced Frappuccinos. For them, losing the neighborhood Starbucks is a rebuke that stings.
The Dallas Morning News (via Starbucks Gossip) says:
Starbucks is an iconic brand that means something more than just a company. It’s become a sign of middle-class American modishness. To get a Starbucks in your neighborhood meant that you were validated, in some sense…
For Starbucks to leave means that your part of town, in terms of social psychology, is downwardly mobile. That, I think, is what most rattles folks about losing their Starbucks, even if they rarely went there. It’s a status thing.
Well I just hope this continues to gather momentum. I want the presidential candidates to be grilled about this crucial issue at town-hall forums: What do you plan to do, Senator, about the loss of Starbucks locations and resulting status diminution of the affected communities?
Foreclosures and bank failures — that’s one thing. But we’re talking about a loss of access to the “cultural mainstream” here! Maybe a government bailout is in order. …
Also: From the comments to yesterday’s related post, Braulio contributes this link to an interactive “Save Your Starbucks” feature on Slate.
[7/23 Update: Via uncivilsociety.org, more Starbucks lamentation in Newark: “The cafe in downtown Newark is in some ways unique, a high-profile sign to all the people who fear the city that life is normal.”]
On Wednesday, August 6, at 7 pm, I’ll be reading (or at least talking) and answering questions and signing at Politics & Prose in Washington, D.C. According to me, it will be “casual and fun,” and there might even be another limited-edition poster…. More on that soon (I hope).
And in the non-physical world, I’ll be answering questions online at GoodReads.com, from August 11 through August 22 — though you can post questions anytime before that as well, right here. If you’re a GoodReads user who has marked the book “to read,” well, I hope you’ll read it and join in. Or if you’ve read it already. Or if you just want to stop by and haze me. Your call.
Some say Americans won’t get together to support a cause, to fight for what matters to them. It isn’t so! People are banding together to make a difference — by trying to convince a multinational corporation not to close up shop in their city or town. They’re fighting to Save Our Starbucks.
In towns as small as Bloomfield, N.M., and metropolises as large as New York, customers and city officials are starting to write letters, place phone calls, circulate petitions and otherwise plead with the coffee company to change its mind.
Perhaps the Starbucks brand isn’t as troubled and reviled as some recent analyses would suggest? It’s hard to imagine a Save Our Walmart campaign. Then again, you never know.
Via Starbucks Gossip, which also points out this article, in which an analyst concludes that “about 54 percent of the locations [slated for closure] are within about two miles of another Starbucks.”
Subhead in the WSJ today about a Virgin Mobile promotion: “Strip-Video Requests To Help Teen Charities Ended After Complaints.”
It’s like this:
A few weeks ago, Virgin Mobile launched “Strip2Clothe,” inviting people to send videos of themselves undressing. For each video posted, it agreed to donate a new piece of clothing to nonprofit groups that help homeless youth.
Turns out, some people complained! Can you believe it?
"
. With 
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A 
