Do Consumers Really Have a Choice?

A theme that frequently arises in discussion is the issue of choice. Do we actually have a choice in what we buy? Do we have a choice in creating the meanings associated with objects? Does a wider array of one item actually mean that we have a choice?




In our discussion of the structure of retail spaces, many people brought up the idea that there are a number of brands and types that exist of one single item. Cereal was used as an example in class, and is an excellent example. In every supermarket cereal has its own aisle. You can choose between different flavors, different shapes, different types of grains, and so on. The question that was posed was whether there really is a difference?




Retailers often sell generic versions of items and claim that they are exactly the same, minus the bigger price tag. Nevertheless, store brand products carry the stigma that it’s inferior to name brands. Therefore, are we paying extra just for the brand name, as many suggest? Or is there a real qualitative difference?

The counterfeiting business in fashion can support the claim that it is the brand that we are paying for. Counterfeit luxury goods are considered a pretty large problem, and some members within the fashion industry have launched campaigns against counterfeiting. Handbags are one of the most popular items that are counterfeited, and often times it is difficult to tell between the real item and the fake one. The quality of counterfeit products are in some cases identical to the real version that companies have resorted to telling consumers to observe the selling practices of the vendor and the quality of the packaging to determine whether or not the item is fake. If it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the authentic and the knock-off based on the quality of the product, then there really isn’t a qualitative difference, but a quantitative difference based on the sign value of the product (its brand).




The use of generic drugs also supports this statement. On every prescription there is a note to the patient and the doctor that unless explicitly stated the generic form of the drug will be dispensed if it exists. Generics are preferred as they perform the same as their name brand counterpart and cost significantly less. Campaigns against generic drugs are virtually nonexistent as opposed to the anti-counterfeit campaigns in the fashion industry. In fact campaigns surrounding generic drugs are actually calling for more drugs to be made into generic versions.




It might be that generic drugs are within a separate category from fashion and food. Images can be created from the brands that you wear and the types of foods that you eat. Those who consider themselves eco-friendly might prefer organic foods, which give off a particular image, which cannot be done with medication.

Nevertheless, I am not completely convinced that there is a qualitative difference in many products. Take for example drugstore and department store cosmetics. L’Oreal manufactures Maybelline New York, a cheap line of drugstore cosmetics. But L’Oreal also manufactures Lancome, which is considered a department store line and is much, much more expensive than Maybelline. There have been claims that sometimes high-end and low-end cosmetics are produced in the same lab and sometimes it’s just the wider choice of colors, the better packaging, and the personal service that you receive at the counters in the department stores that set them apart.




Taking into consideration all that has been presented, it still leaves the question of choice. If all products are virtually the same, then what are we choosing from? The brand and image? And if so, to what extent do we have a choice in that? If your economic status prevents you from buying department store cosmetics then what choice do you really have?

The Society of the Spectacle: The Degradation of Society?

Debord’s collection of theses presents an image of society in which human relationships are based on representations rather than genuine interactions. “Social relationships between people… [are] mediated by images,” this relationship is the spectacle (Debord, 12). The spectacle is a product of capitalism and the media. It is not about the relationship between goods and people, but about the relationship created between people as a result of goods.

The spectacle is very much connected to the concept of brands. When you buy a certain brand you are expressing aspects of your lifestyle. Brands do not exist in isolation, but in relation to each other. The idea is if you buy a certain brand of products (A), you also buy this other brand (B), because they both represent the same kind of lifestyle.

The brands that you wear define you. As a result, the spectacle has taken the place of genuine human interaction as individuals are judging each other based on the images that the brands of their possessions give off, and consider it a true representation of the person, instead of judgment based on genuine human interaction.

The idea of the spectacle is very much prevalent in society. Certain brands and types of possessions form images. As a result of these images judgments are made about people regardless of the fact that there hasn’t been any kind of real human interaction.

As discussed in the first couple of classes, many people felt as if there is a “Williams look.” This image includes wearing certain brands of clothing, carrying certain brands and types of tote bags, etc. It also implies a certain kind of lifestyle, generally that of being raised in New England in an upper middle class household, having attended a prestigious high school, etc.

Although I’ve adopted this “dress code” to a certain degree, that sort of implied lifestyle does not apply to me. However, as we do live in a society of the spectacle as much as we hate to admit, it does not matter. Many times after a couple of interactions with some people they are amazed to find out that the implied lifestyle associated with my style of dress does not apply nor do the judgments previously made about my attitude and personality apply.

Furthermore, this way of social interaction does actually degrade human interactions. Although I’m not very proud to admit it, I do allow images to mediate my relationships with other people. By observing the possessions of a person, I do make judgments about them, judgments about their personality, lifestyle, etc. As a result of my judgments, I usually choose whether or not to interact with that person and how I interact with them if I do.

It’s not uncommon for me to hear my friends judge others solely based on their images either. For example, if a person walks by with baggy pants, large t-shirts, and lots of flashy jewelry on, some of my friends would associate them with “ghetto” culture and suggest that they know about that person’s socio-economic status, their interests, their personality, etc. and choose not to interact with them. The danger in this particular case is in the assignment of an inferior social position to the individual, the reinforcement of social hierarchies and social cleavages.

The Architecture of Retail Spaces: Ways to Trap the Consumer

“The mall is thus designed as a noncommutative space, and the goal is to trap the consumer in the world of consumption.”

- Jon Goss

In his piece, Jon Goss explores the physical structures of malls and examines the ways in which the architecture and spatial layout breeds behavior that promotes consumerism. After hearing the reports on our assignment to observe retail spaces, a common theme was the layout of the store to encourage impulse buys. A common strategy used by many retail businesses is to place small, relatively inexpensive items, such as candies, magazines, snacks, etc. near the checkout areas for customers to browse through while waiting in line.

While working at Blockbuster Videos a couple of years ago, a major focus throughout the day was to keep the snack and drink displays fully stocked. Blockbuster fully embraced the idea of the “reckless sweet tooth” purchase even using candy and snack displays to form the line. In the picture below, the store has abandoned the use of the black tape to form the line and has instead placed tables displaying sale items, racks containing snacks and magazines, and beverage refrigerators to structure the line.




By using these items to structure the line it guarantees that every customer would pass by it, basically there is no escaping the bombardment of products. Especially weekend nights when most stores experience their peak sales and the lines run into the aisles of the store, the snack display alleviates the customer’s boredom with magazines and even more movies and their hunger with snacks, candies, and beverages.

Another theme that was prominent in our discussion was the structure of the retail space to literally trap the consumer. As Goss writes in the piece, the exits in a retail environment are created to be hidden and hard to find, and therefore should not look too inviting. Many retail spaces have multiple doors that lead to different parking lots and are often tinted and hidden as to not attract attention.

As a result, while trying to find the specific door they came in from, customers are left wandering throughout the store, which can lead to an impulsive purchase. This statement forces me to recall an instance in which I was in a department store and while looking for the particular door I came in through I “stumbled” across the shoe department and just “coincidentally” needed a new pairs of shoes.

Furthermore, the organization of the retail space to trap the consumer brings to mind a particular mall that I’ve been in. The Sawgrass Mills Shopping Mall is an outlet mall located in Sunrise, Florida, and is the sixth largest mall in the United States. Being the sixth largest mall, there is a definite need for an innovative design to keep the consumer in the mall as long as possible. This mall is fascinating to many people coincidentally enough because it is shaped like an alligator.




Not having a strict linear layout, the mall has many curved areas and at the end of each section there are two ways to turn. Even having been in the mall over a dozen times I still frequently get lost. In addition to the ever-changing lineup of stores and additions to the mall, the shape of the mall makes it so easy to take a wrong turn and get lost.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the Goss article, some shopping centers have employed a “narrative” strategy to keep people to keep walking. A “fun” activity for many shoppers in this mall is to guess which part of the alligator they are in by observing the curvatures and length of the section. The decision to shape the mall as an alligator makes it stand apart from all other linear style malls, and also works magnificently in “trapping” the consumer.

Buzz Marketing: Essentially All Bad?

From the conclusion on our discussion on undercover marketing it seems as if the general attitude towards it is pretty negative. Undercover marketing implies some kind of ulterior motive on behalf of the “agent” attempting to sell the product, and the fact that ordinary people are doing this in everyday situations threatens the nature of personal relationships, which many of us are uncomfortable with. However, the founder of BzzAgent, Dave Balter, claims that word-of-mouth advertising is not changing the social fabric. People in everyday situations talk about the products they like with friends and family; buzz advertising is merely an organized form of it, providing a way to gauge and interpret success (Walker, 9).

Procter & Gamble, the manufacturer of a wide range of consumer goods including personal care, food items, laundry detergents, etc., has fully embraced word-of-mouth marketing, incorporating a buzz advertising division within their own company. Unlike BzzAgent, where companies hire them to produce campaigns, P&G operates these advertising campaigns themselves. In October of 2005, consumer group Commercial Alert filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Tremor, the word-of-mouth marketing campaign for teens created by P&G, claiming the inevitability of the “commercialization of human relations” as Tremor members are not required to identify themselves as agents (“I Sold it Through the Grapevine,” Business Week Article, May 29, 2006).

Being a former Tremor member, I wasn’t fully convinced that the practice was evil, nor was I fully convinced that it’s perfectly fine. However, my opinion might be swayed by my experiences with Tremor. As the Business Week article points out, most P&G products are not aimed towards teenagers and that’s why 80% of Tremor’s campaigns have been for outside clients (“I Sold it Through the Grapevine, Business Week Article, May 29, 2006).



I remember my first “assignment” arriving in the mail. Inside the kit were pamphlets and rubber bracelets advocating teens to drink milk. I was given about ten bracelets to distribute along with the pamphlets listing the reasons why teens should drink more milk and how much to drink. While everybody has seen their favorite celebrities donning the milk mustache in the Got Milk? Ads, I didn’t particularly find it cool or interesting to distribute these bracelets and pamphlets. Agents are required to report to Tremor not long after they receive their kits, and after expressing my reluctance to participate eventually I was given less and less assignments.




Even though I was eventually dropped by Tremor, I didn’t have any bitter feelings. In the article by Rob Walker, some agents cite having the “upper hand” in social relations as the reason for participating and for others participation improved their social skills. When I first signed up with Tremor, what allured me to the program was the prospect of trying new products for free, sometimes days right after they hit the stores, and getting free pre-screenings of movies and TV shows.

In addition, many of the brands under P&G are brands that I use daily and trust. The prospect of trying new products from my favorite brands for free was definitely a perk. Besides, I already rave to my friends about the products that I use, so things wouldn’t be any different.

Furthermore, if Tremor sent me a product that I didn’t like, I wasn’t compelled to spread the word about it, and could even give feedback to the company. In fact, sometimes I would speak negatively to friends and family about a product that I received if I felt it was truly horrible.

However, I can understand the stance of those who feel as if the corporations are using them, making them do the work that the corporations are supposed to, and in some cases employing tactics to do so. In a video that features Tremor employees, the concept of consumer ownership is brought up. In this video, the account manager for Tremor claims that the program allows consumer to weigh in on the brands, giving them opportunities to give feedback on products, ads, etc. In turn these members feel a kind of ownership, which drives them to promote the items with greater determination.

However, the extent to which these members actually have ownership over these products and ads is questionable. The issue of consumer choice appears. It may seem as if consumers actually have a choice when a wide selection of brands and variations of one kind of item exists. But their choices are limited to what is before them. The multiplicity of a certain item gives off an impression of choice, when in reality there is not much difference between one brand and another.

An illusion of ownership can be applied towards Tremor’s claims. If members are asked to choose within a set of different ads for a certain product, a sense of ownership can develop. The members might feel as if they played a role in the production of the ad when in reality they were just asked to choose between a couple of specific, predetermined choices. However, this impression of ownership drives them to promote the item that they feel they helped produce. And who wouldn’t want people to buy something they helped create?

The companies do not even have to take their opinions into consideration. But the fact that they were asked to give their opinions and see the products before they are finalized is ownership enough. In this way companies can create an emotional connection between the agents and the products, causing the agents to more willingly advertise the products.





Furthermore, after reading about the practices of BzzAgents, I feel as if there is a line in buzz marketing. Word-of-mouth advertising is ok when the “agent” feels strongly about the product they are advertising. Reading up on the “key points” of a novel and posting a review on a website is misleading and should not be done. The social fabric is not changed if somebody is raving about a product that they genuinely like and believe works. However, when individuals are actually promoting products they are unfamiliar with and would actually never use themselves, the line has been crossed.

What can be branded?

Adorno and Horkheimer end their piece describing the present practice of the commoditization of individuals. With this commoditization, individuals can now be given a value and exchanged. While nobody wants to think of him or herself as having a “price tag,” it is very much real. In the last class we discussed the word-of-mouth approach in advertising products and related it to the word-of-mouth advertising of individuals through references and recommendations.

In the “real world” whoever gets the best recommendations and the best people to recommend them are ultimately the ones who succeed. In college everybody learns the value of summer jobs and internships to get them in the lead of the job market after graduation. While it is unfair to say that it is impossible to get a summer job or internship solely based on merits, in the end those who are better connected have an easier time and in most cases get better opportunities. Having connections that will place you in a well respected laboratory conducting research with the top individuals of a field is definitely better than the person without connections who spends their summer as a hospital intern answering phones and handing out meals.

In this case individuals are given a value and exchanged through the advertising they receive through recommendations. The person who refers you has a value in their field, through their recommendation they are establishing your reputation to be on par with theirs (they are essentially “branding” you). An employer would value the opinions of an individual who is at the top of their field more than somebody who is just mediocre because their credentials are well established and their association with you gives the employer a sense of expectations.

Furthermore, if asked why they decided to attend Williams many students would reply the reputation of the college (which is further reiterated in the position of the college in the last couple of years on the US News and World Report’s annual list of the best colleges in America). Having claimed the top spot for a number of years, the college has acquired what can be considered a brand. When applying to colleges, schools are divided in tiers, allowing for comparison. It is pretty much accepted that there is a hierarchy when it comes to institutions of higher education, and along with it expectations.



Because Williams has topped the list for many years, there are high levels of expectations, and when these expectations are not met, the “brand” of the school is tarnished. When events that spark controversy arises (such as racial slurs being made, human excrement found in places other than bathrooms), sometimes a common response is, “It shouldn’t happen at a place like Williams.” This response is directed towards the “brand” of Williams. These events deviate from the expectations and there is much embarrassment when other schools, especially schools that we consider inferior to us, criticize and mock us, and subsequently devaluing our reputation/brand.

In these situations, the exchange value is dependent on sign value. Neither case really involves physical objects that can be assigned value through human labor; they involve assigning exchange values to individuals and institutions, neither of which are new and shocking or uncommon.