Target Markets

And it's good to hear someone speak out against overcommercialization AND culture jamming at the same time.

I still don't know why there's such a worry about 'drawing attention' to corporate brands by mentioning them. Oh no, I might have caused someone to think about white rum. I'm ruining the world.

I do love the word 'Brandalism'; I think I'll try to work it into some conversations today.

www.raptitude.com -- The gentle art of sanity amidst civilization

I was just reading the book Karma Queens, Geek Gods and Innerpreneurs. Personally, the books agenda to sweep people into convenient little marketing buckets annoys the shit out of me. The authors have dubbed these buckets as “C-Types,” that is Consumer Types, which umbrellas both demographic and psychogrpahic data. Maybe it’s just me, but the tone of “target marketing” is eerily reminiscent of the quiet observing narrator on those nature shows. Somehow it feels as if human beings have become unsuspecting animals being monitored for migration, consumption and behavior patterns. Marketing even does that whole “catch and release” thing – snagging a few consumers for close-up analysis and then releasing them back into the marketplace. Animals are, at least, smart enough to struggle when this happens. Human beings on the other hand are very complacent when it comes to being captured by marketing and turned into data. Maybe because they see the advantage of being “understood” by marketing. Perhaps they know that Marketers are willing to cater to them, assuaging their pains, fears and insecurities with products that are – as they would phrase it – “tailored to meet your needs.”

Or are we tailored to meet their needs?

I still can’t figure out which one drives the other: Are Target Markets shaped by Target Marketing or does Target Marketing shape itself based on the aesthetes of Target Markets? The Entertainment Industry seems to shape its markets…but only up to a certain point. After that it seems as if what they’ve shaped, shapes them. For instance, it’s a truism that magazines are written on a high-school reading level. For that matter, Broadcast Television is usually at a high-school entertainment level. So…if all people over the age of 17 are limited to 17 and under reading and entertainment material, well than that explains the “dumb American” syndrome. And yet, the pendulum begins to swing in the other direction when dumb Americans, through their purchasing habits, make it clear that they will only settle for “dumb & dumber” content. Suddenly you have an entire marketplace competing to see how low they can go to reach the lowest common denominator. My guess is that they’ll reach this bedrock when adults are being entertained by big and bold, colorful talking animals who are easily excited by their own platitudes. Or has that happened already?

Shit, that scares me. Not for any political reasons. It has nothing to do with the rise of an “evil empire” that controls people or any crap like that. It scares me simply because marketing almost always equates to sameness. Homogenization. Dullsville. Marketing thrives when people are programmed for repetition. The moment people think, act and move outside of their prescribed demographic, marketing mavens are forced to rethink and restructure themselves. Diversity is simply not practical in the world of Marketing.

American segregation has been replaced with marketing demographics. After college, people just seem to automatically migrate into their assigned demographic areas, only rarely integrating with other demographic circles. So conditioned are we to coloring within the lines that when someone “crosses-over” they get smeared for it. The first white kids who decided to cross-over to hip-hop were called “Wiggers.” I questioned a guy about this once and he said that he just hates when people pretend to be something they’re not. Apparently he didn’t realize that everybody is pretending to be something they’re not. We’re all pretty much wearing identities that were prescribed to us and our demographic. It just stands out more when you start trying on identities from some other demographic.

Personally, I’m rooting for the Wiggers. I’m rooting for the Sell-Outs. I’m rooting for all the demographic cross-overs and anybody who’s crazy enough to be “something they’re not.” I say we keep the marketing MoFo’s on their toes. Keep ‘em guessing. If we have to be Target Markets then we should at least be moving targets. www.sniffcode.com

It is often mind boggling how we seek to blame anyone for trying to tempt oneself away from basic necessity satisfaction.

We are the ones who go for the gimmick because we ourselves are not satisfied. Of course Congressman can also fall for gimmicks, as can scientists.

 Where is the actual "satisfaction" that inherently accompanies an indigenous and organic connection to basic food/clothing/shelter and a little community sharing.

During the "Woodstock era" the awareness of this basic loss was way more keen than among many of the modern day "burners". and other neo-progressives etc  ... who just seem to want their own version of "maya" as opposed to someone elses. {not as a rule but enough to register the trend}

The inner pleasure just doesn't seem anywhere to be found. We don't focus on the basic premise that it is we who have been feeding the "maya" ... it is always something done to us.

Some people can easily turn the TV off ... some just can't seem to do it ... etc etc

Of course as we go through our growing processs, we would "normally" be dependant on our elders and peers to help guide our progress through maturation.

Yet all we get these days is distraction and agitation away from such inherent viability. {no local shamans to "initiate" us .. so we attempt to initiate ourselves}

There will always be some responsibility upon each of us for going along however direct or indirect .. no matter who's intitial idea it was .. to behave this way and that.

 This is likely the "cosmic reason" that someone like Barrack Obama became president, instead of someone like Ron Paul.

 Someone who can mediate any "possibility of transition" among all of our collecfive participation in the overall madness

... rather than someone who was ready to immdiately "take the candy away" {IRS/ Federal Reserve etc}

We are not yet ready to actually take rsponsibility for our own participation {again, however indirect ... as a general rule}

 Everyone guilty ... no one to blame ... each others nemesis ... indefinetly ... unless and until ...

Of course why would an individual want to take responsibility for "everything one does" when the natural peers and such are not doing so.

There also being a natural tendency to "swim with the rest of school {fish} ... or run with pack etc.

 No real question or answer here ... the deeper into it all one gets how can one but see how little is actually necessary. for individual or collective understanding and/or satisfaction.

Antonio: "Essentially culture jamming ends up creating more mindshare and attention for the brands they intend to criticize."

Certainly does. Same thing applies to conspiracy theories, New World Order stuff,  etc. Sometimes it seems to be a matter of missing the forest for the trees., no matter what side of the fence you're on.

Often, these things really do jam up (the flow of new) culture(s). Creating blockages, avenues of distraction, etc. I guess it's good to bring attention, but at some point one's attention is consumed by the whole mess, for good or ill.

Here's another relevant Buckminster Fuller quote:

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."