Due to the endeavours of the Bush administration, the global village is becoming increasingly fractured; clusters being defined by various determinants such as nationality, religion, income, age and education (to name but a few). Even Bush’s most ardent supporters will admit that his policies have highlighted the differences, as opposed to the commonalities between cultures. Nevertheless, the negative perceptions that ‘western’ cultures have nurtured predate Bush. If anything, Bush has saved the rest of the world from falling in step with American tastes and culture by bringing the negatives of Americana to the forefront. Disillusioned by his administration’s overtly aggressive stance on foreign policy, many in the Islamic (Asian, European, etc) world are over-compensating by latching onto and exaggerating their own customs, so as to ensure that cultural imperialism can be thwarted. Subsequently, the much awaited clash of civilisations seems imminent. Only by finding communal points of reference that transcend regional boundaries can one hope to ease the friction between cultures that are beginning to seem intrinsically different from one another.
Given this incestuous atmosphere of staying with one’s own, it is interesting to note how globalization has played a role in providing a new platform of commonalities. Ever since MTV launched in the 80’s, a movement began of what can now officially be deemed the MTV generation. Especially applicable to any post Gen X age group, the shared values of viewers, due to their identical viewership patterns ensure that irrespective of nationality or religion, all kids (in a given income group) are aware of the Beyonces, Versaces and Nikes of our world. This might seem inconsequential, but, by adorning the brand-centric spectacles of marketers it's impossible to ignore the underpinnings of a new global language. This language might not have been fully adopted by me or you…but the kids of our generation are on a path of homogenization. Having established a trans-national language of brands, icons and symbols, the generation of the future will be able to gauge the commonalities they share with a third person by judging him/her on a common platform, i.e. clothing, music, styling, etc. This does not imply that the youth are more materialistic, although it does mean that the advertising spend of big brands is beginning to pay dividends. This process can be likened to the adoption of general symbols that now inundate our lives. For example, the sign for a men’s washroom is almost identical everywhere in the world. Irrespective of culture, people now share a common symbol that can not be boxed in by regional boundaries. This is also true for many road signs that we come across daily. But enough of urinals… I hope that you will humour me as I elaborate on those brand-centric spectacles that I mentioned earlier.
Most brands try to create a niche so that consumers associate a unique persona to a brand. Billions are spent to establish a brand’s personality, image, culture as well as its visual and verbal tone of communication. Previously, this practice served one purpose, to increase sales by clearly demarcating a persona that fit the mould of the ideal customer. Alas, the sheer volume of investment in creating these brand personas, coupled with an increasingly individualistic and time starved culture has resulted in a seismic shift whereby individuals now choose a brand to leverage its associations. In short, brands used to previously work on creating personas that would appeal to its target market, but, now people adopt a persona by choosing brands that reflect their perceived ideal.
Due to the prevalence of brands, a kid brought up on Western fodder in Pakistan might now have more in common with a kid in Ecuador than a less privileged Pakistani kid. Commonalities, such as culture, are slowly being eroded under the pressure exerted by global advertising, as well as the tastes and preferences they forge. Anthropologists, scared of being deprived of their livelihood, are obviously livid about this phenomenon, but are powerless to do anything other than to document the slow demise of regional differences. I would be willing to bet that a hundred years from now, anthropologists will be citing M.N.C.’s and the associated media bombardment as being amongst the most influential determinants of future cultural behaviour.
Let me explain why I am so certain of the outcome. Time is becoming almost as scare a commodity as oil and subsequently people have less time to get to know one another. Given this scenario, people subliminally judge one another to gauge whom they would best get along with, thereby, setting criterion of social groupings. Previously, this criterion tended to be based on culture, age and religion because it was assumed that a person from the same culture and religion would share a lot of commonalities. More often than not, this was the case. But, as the walls of cultural segregation are torn down by satellite channels, people are beginning to understand that a shared regional culture does not imply shared tastes, preferences and lifestyles. Instead, brands which are widely recognized are beginning to be viewed as chapter titles for a book titled ‘ME’. Is it a coincidence that people who adorn billabong tend to hang out with people who wear similar brands (Hurley, Quicksilver, Roxy, etc) as opposed to a person who adorns the Versaces of the world? Is it a coincidence that more often than not, a grouping of BMW owners would also include people who own Mercs, Lexuses or Jaguars as opposed to a Hyundai. You yell “that’s segmenting by income you bugger” and I reply “well so are brands!’. Is it a coincidence that more and more brands are coming out with global campaigns as opposed to country or region specific campaigns? Are companies beginning to realize they can use one message to communicate with the whole world as opposed to customizing each campaign for each country? Maybe. But I think companies are beginning to realize that they don’t need to ‘talk to the whole world’, they just need to talk to their world.
And talk they do. They talk to ‘us’ and we talk to the ‘them’s who mirror the ‘me’s. Ideally brands would not factor into the equation, but these days anything is a brand and nobody is above stereotyping. Obviously we all want to be above stereotyping, but through my personal experience of constant relocation (I am a FOK’er (Foreign Office Kid) after all) I have realized that one tends to subliminally migrate towards a person who seems to share the same tastes, preferences or opinions. In an ideal world, one would duly allocate time to discover one’s surroundings, co-workers, associates, etc, but we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where time is a commodity and instead of discovering a person we tend to take a quick glimpse of the brands they use or admire to ascertain their tastes. After all, a stoner doesn’t hang out with a raver too often. Why? Tastes and preferences.
I’ve stopped making sense now and have managed to confuse myself so I’m going to do the honourable thing…and stop writing.
Given this incestuous atmosphere of staying with one’s own, it is interesting to note how globalization has played a role in providing a new platform of commonalities. Ever since MTV launched in the 80’s, a movement began of what can now officially be deemed the MTV generation. Especially applicable to any post Gen X age group, the shared values of viewers, due to their identical viewership patterns ensure that irrespective of nationality or religion, all kids (in a given income group) are aware of the Beyonces, Versaces and Nikes of our world. This might seem inconsequential, but, by adorning the brand-centric spectacles of marketers it's impossible to ignore the underpinnings of a new global language. This language might not have been fully adopted by me or you…but the kids of our generation are on a path of homogenization. Having established a trans-national language of brands, icons and symbols, the generation of the future will be able to gauge the commonalities they share with a third person by judging him/her on a common platform, i.e. clothing, music, styling, etc. This does not imply that the youth are more materialistic, although it does mean that the advertising spend of big brands is beginning to pay dividends. This process can be likened to the adoption of general symbols that now inundate our lives. For example, the sign for a men’s washroom is almost identical everywhere in the world. Irrespective of culture, people now share a common symbol that can not be boxed in by regional boundaries. This is also true for many road signs that we come across daily. But enough of urinals… I hope that you will humour me as I elaborate on those brand-centric spectacles that I mentioned earlier.
Most brands try to create a niche so that consumers associate a unique persona to a brand. Billions are spent to establish a brand’s personality, image, culture as well as its visual and verbal tone of communication. Previously, this practice served one purpose, to increase sales by clearly demarcating a persona that fit the mould of the ideal customer. Alas, the sheer volume of investment in creating these brand personas, coupled with an increasingly individualistic and time starved culture has resulted in a seismic shift whereby individuals now choose a brand to leverage its associations. In short, brands used to previously work on creating personas that would appeal to its target market, but, now people adopt a persona by choosing brands that reflect their perceived ideal.
Due to the prevalence of brands, a kid brought up on Western fodder in Pakistan might now have more in common with a kid in Ecuador than a less privileged Pakistani kid. Commonalities, such as culture, are slowly being eroded under the pressure exerted by global advertising, as well as the tastes and preferences they forge. Anthropologists, scared of being deprived of their livelihood, are obviously livid about this phenomenon, but are powerless to do anything other than to document the slow demise of regional differences. I would be willing to bet that a hundred years from now, anthropologists will be citing M.N.C.’s and the associated media bombardment as being amongst the most influential determinants of future cultural behaviour.
Let me explain why I am so certain of the outcome. Time is becoming almost as scare a commodity as oil and subsequently people have less time to get to know one another. Given this scenario, people subliminally judge one another to gauge whom they would best get along with, thereby, setting criterion of social groupings. Previously, this criterion tended to be based on culture, age and religion because it was assumed that a person from the same culture and religion would share a lot of commonalities. More often than not, this was the case. But, as the walls of cultural segregation are torn down by satellite channels, people are beginning to understand that a shared regional culture does not imply shared tastes, preferences and lifestyles. Instead, brands which are widely recognized are beginning to be viewed as chapter titles for a book titled ‘ME’. Is it a coincidence that people who adorn billabong tend to hang out with people who wear similar brands (Hurley, Quicksilver, Roxy, etc) as opposed to a person who adorns the Versaces of the world? Is it a coincidence that more often than not, a grouping of BMW owners would also include people who own Mercs, Lexuses or Jaguars as opposed to a Hyundai. You yell “that’s segmenting by income you bugger” and I reply “well so are brands!’. Is it a coincidence that more and more brands are coming out with global campaigns as opposed to country or region specific campaigns? Are companies beginning to realize they can use one message to communicate with the whole world as opposed to customizing each campaign for each country? Maybe. But I think companies are beginning to realize that they don’t need to ‘talk to the whole world’, they just need to talk to their world.
And talk they do. They talk to ‘us’ and we talk to the ‘them’s who mirror the ‘me’s. Ideally brands would not factor into the equation, but these days anything is a brand and nobody is above stereotyping. Obviously we all want to be above stereotyping, but through my personal experience of constant relocation (I am a FOK’er (Foreign Office Kid) after all) I have realized that one tends to subliminally migrate towards a person who seems to share the same tastes, preferences or opinions. In an ideal world, one would duly allocate time to discover one’s surroundings, co-workers, associates, etc, but we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where time is a commodity and instead of discovering a person we tend to take a quick glimpse of the brands they use or admire to ascertain their tastes. After all, a stoner doesn’t hang out with a raver too often. Why? Tastes and preferences.
I’ve stopped making sense now and have managed to confuse myself so I’m going to do the honourable thing…and stop writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment