good consumers....

The above is something I've been thinking about for a while and needed to get down on paper. In a nutshell...

Good consumers (defined as people who buy stuff they don't need - as always - I include myself in the group) are, by definition (it is not rational to spend money you don't have, on stuff you don't need), more psychologically disturbed than those who are able to moderate their desire to shop.

Or to put it another way - the greater the psychological disturbance the more likely a person is to consume additively and compulsively.

2 outcomes which flow from this....

1. It is not in the interests of those who make vast sums of money selling stuff that we don't need (in other words powerful people and the politicians who are elected at their behest), to try and address the explosion in mental health issues which has occurred since the 1970s, since their wealth (and power) depends on people’s “unhappiness”.

2. If you're a manager of a brand, and you want to sell more of your product – it is rational to target those who are psychologically disturbed - which in itself is fairly easy given the correlation between poor psychological health and most of the activities which pass as "normal" within our society (working excessively, smoking, drinking, believing in god, sitting on the sofa watching TV, levels of stress, attaining poor / excellent grades at school, v. low / v. high wage jobs etc).

My evidence for this? Apart from reading all the usual books on consumption and related topics (The Overspent American, The Growth Fetish, No Logo etc) I don't have any. Perhaps someone could supply me with some...

being human...

In the spirit of the web being a collection of half formed ideas - below is a presentation I found lurking in a long forgotten corner of my hard drive.

I never finished it......an annoying habit of mine.

Much of it still resonates with me though, so I thought why not throw it out there and see what comes back

Being Human Slides

View more presentations from savioursofpop.

Strategy before operations – why most digital agencies can do better…

I haven't yet worked in a digital agency which has a decent strategy process to use with its clients.

They’ll tell you they have one – but where’s the bits of paper? Who in the organisation has a strategic training and spends time on it? And more importantly – when was the last time they actually used it and followed it though?

Only by developing a solid strategy (vision of the future) can brands then figure out what they really want to achieve - and from there – what to build / design / launch to get there.

It’s understandable in many ways. Human nature suggests that having won an account, the temptation to jump into operational mode and prove you are delivering something often means a strategic look isn't taken as clearly, or for as long, as perhaps it should be.

Something I I've picked up from years of working with the people at strategic thinking group, is without a clear, tangible process that enables people to paint a simple vision of what they think the future will look like - good things come harder.

My own ideas are coming soon….

are we f**king stupid?

I'd forgotten how powerful the writing of Noam Chomsky is.

“Manufacturing Consent”, “Hegemony or Survival” - masterpieces - because they speak truths - real, difficult to admit, deep down, "bollocks he's right" truths.

He came to mind reading about CIA water boarding.

Fact is - anyone of us would admit to blowing up the twin towers if you nearly drowned us 180 times a month – why was this pretty obvious logic ignored by everyone? Chomsky would consider this "manufacturing consent".

When dissident Saudi pilot flying planes into skyscrapers - that is terrorism. (Lets all stop pretending it was illiterate Afghani tribesmen with 3 hours behind the wheel of a crop duster shall we?)

And when the US tortures detainees - that's also terrorism right?

RIGHT?

How is it that basic, logical statements like the ones above (which are kind of irrefutable unless you believe the world was created in 6 days - or you're thick) - get ignored? The reason, if we're being honest, is because those of us doing the ignoring, don't hold the same point of view as the people being ignored.

This embedded collective blind spot is the mechanic behind the manufacturing of consent. It is this hard wired, tribal, group instinct which leads to so much dysfunctional behaviour in the world. It is the reason why, whilst 30% of Americans find themselves obese, millions of others on our tiny planet die of hunger. It is the reason our economic systems routinely collapse. The reason 1 in 3 of us are unhappy.

Us humans - we're f**king stupid sometimes....

understanding creates participation

5 years ago I didn't write a blog - it was too much hassle - I couldn't see the point

Now, living and breathing the online and psychological worlds for so long - I find myself almost enjoying it (I have to admit - I love the thinking - I'm not so good at the structure / detail of committing my thoughts to virtual paper)

so I began to wonder what had changed - and it struck me that understanding had created participation.

obvious - but something I think we forget - I saw a stat today - 75% of 18-34 year old Amercians' are on facebook and Myspace

the cynic will tell you that 99% of them are just trying to get laid - but imagine what they'll all be doing in 5 years time....

beelzebub's economic feast

Peak oil created the current financial melt down.

Few people in power talk about this of course. To do so would be to accept an important variable in the well being of western consumerism is unknown - and we humans (and our money) don't do unknowns.

A Buddhists might point out nothing is in our control - and attempts to kid ourselves otherwise only drive us further into the warm embrace of chaos - but we digress...

The point is - a lack of oil (whether real or imaginary) seems likely to drive its price higher any time anyone mentions “green shoots”.

For this reason, my prediction is we'll see politicians continue to deny, in black and white terms, the possibility of depression (as they are now doing, by frequently talking about the end of a “recession” they have no way of knowing exists and whose presence no data currently supports) but begin to speak about economic recovery much more obliquely.

This is Beelzebub’s economic feast.

Economic stagnation becomes a self fulfilling prophesy - the resources on which growth is based, becoming a luxury item, every time the economy looks like its turning a corner.

Good news for oil speculators, the green movement and those of us with stupidly large mortgages though....

car scrapping schemes

there is, pretty much, a worldwide consensus that we're in a financial mess because of a debt fueled consumption binge.

Many of us (myself included) rushed to buy a load of crap we didn't need - and in the process, hastened the destruction of the very ecosystem on which our lives depend.

The solution from the people who are meant to be in charge?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7995928.stm

Encourage people to take on more debt, to replace something that doesn't need to be replaced, and in the process consume more resource the planet doesn't have.

Genius....