Readings, Week 3

For this week's assignment we read an article: Transforming Social Spaces: Female Identity and the Mall which was presented by Miranda Brady at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, held in NYC this May. It can be read in very small chunks here:  http://tinyurl.com/ycrrb2g

While I share the author's disdain for malls, capitalism and a culture defined by consumerism, this article really ticked me off.

First of all, as a woman, I resent being cast as enabler of the ugly, unenlightened status quo because I am the natural target of shopping mall developers and retail marketers. Second, as an unabashedly proud bargain shopper who visits a mall monthly and shops weekly, I am infuriated that my life, pastimes, income use and contributions to our economy (hehe!) are so roundly disdained:

"So, one must naturally ask what kind of ideological sensibilities Americans of all socio-economic-status are acquiring when they are spending significant amounts of time in a space that has been designed with private, capitalistic interests for the sole purpose of promoting consumption." (p. 2)

"Apparently the the exchange values offered at the mall are acceptable to at least some segments of the population." (p. 4)

Feeling insulted and affronted, I must confront the very real possibility that part of my annoyance is due my own awareness of the  inevitable and undeniable dark side of this "guilty" pleasure. For the sake of transparency, I must now acknowledge other guilty pleasures -- eating meat, watching violent TV and movies, playing video games, buying water out of plastic bottles ... the list could go on endlessly.

I must also react to this article from my status as former advertising/marketing executive. Here too, I am tempted to become defensive and work hard to rebut the author's premise. Ultimately, even with my many hats, I can not. Capitalism as the single driving force for our society disgusts me. But I've got to ask, is it the worst possible defining attribute? What about comparing it to other culturally defining attributes -- like a highly rigid religion, a facist government or an unyielding caste system? I would love to see students attempt to tease out the positives and negatives in this debate.

One of the major challenges I have to the argument of this article is that it ignores the fact that the consumer's perspective, needs, desires, wants are a core part of marketing and consumerism. A feedback loop is required for success. I imagine very little citizen feedback to a facist regime. I have seen very little change in the Catholic Church to address modern times and values. But today's marketers are spending themselves silly to understand and address consumer's needs. And when these needs are "pro-social" the marketers must respond -- as evidenced by the "greening" of consumer packaged goods and the re-branding of oil companies.

I challenge the author's assertion that consumers "have neither a say in creating the ideologies communicated to them, nor do they always have the time to gain access to opposing ideologies." (p. 2) I would argue that it is only by being attentive to me that the marketers can develop ideologies that are salient to and effective with me.  As a consumer, I have power. I speak with my choices and credit card. They know me, they know what I buy and when I buy it. I might be just another entry in their data analysis, but they are slaves to that analysis. So they suck up to me and respond to my usage patters and desires. They reward my good behavior just as I reward theirs. For example, my "bargain" orientation has not gone unnoticed by the major department store chains. They know very well that they are competing against my favorite discount stores like Marshalls and TJ Maxx. What a surprise then that Macy's has a sale nearly every other weekend. 

By empowering our young people to understand capitalism, how marketers function and their own "power" as consumers, we are offering them career insights, critical thinking and analytical skills, and the ability to harness and apply their power. I would ask them if they could -- by using their consumer power -- change the status quo. It would be a great activity to explore boycotts and buycotts, even plan one as an activity.

The challenge to this "consumer power" concept is that money and volume dictates the level to which one can influence the marketers. My middle-class, white collar demographic is profiled as "mainstream" and because my market segment is so very lucrative, so tied to mainstream media and shopping patterns, I am the default target audience. My preferences and beliefs dominate advertisers' messages and retailers displays -- and as the author points out -- therefore become hegemonic. So my continued participation is sustaining the status quo, making it easier for marketers to ignore potentially less lucrative market segments -- like communities of color in urban centers.

Yet even this point can be debated. Marketers are coming to terms with the fact that "broadcasting" is dying -- and "narrow-casting" or highly segmented markets are the norm. It's not enough to target a big generic demographic anymore. Web 2.0 has a lot to do with this change -- and while I'm not involved enough anymore to know how the trends are driving strategy -- it bet we are a lot closer to 1:1 marketing that the good ole days of "mass" marketing.

Further, it is expensive to reach that mainstream demographic. And it is fairly well saturated. So new efforts are and will continue to target new and different market segments -- like communities of color in the urban core. But through what process will they start making inroads? There are certain products that marketers know must first be adopted by urban african american youth in order to trend successfully into white, middle-class youth. But a whole mall? Or product line?  They'd need data, though, to identify lucrative strategies. I was curious about the International Council of Shopping Centers (a reference on page 2) so I visited their site to see if I could get data. No luck, but I did download the agenda from their last meeting to see what hot topics were discussed by mall retailers.  I found an interesting session:

2:40 – 3:10 pm B - Measuring Urban Retail Demand
Retail real estate research is benchmarked to key data metrics
which include population, income, and spending potential. When
urban, or inner city, areas are under consideration,
traditional sources, such as the Census Bureau and demographics
vendors, are often unable to fully measure population and income/
spending potential. This session will consider ways to improve
urban real estate research with additional methodologies to better
measure the true opportunity associated with urban trade areas.

Moderator:
KAREN SOLHEIM
Owner, Principal
Solheim Research
Santa Monica, CA

Speakers:
GLEN BOYER
Vice President of Real Estate Market Research
Ross Stores
Pleasanton, CA

JOHN TALMAGE
President & CEO
Social Compact
Washington, DC

First off, Ross Stores are another discount clothing retailer -- west coast. Ross Dress for Less. Another personal favorite!

Second, what the heck is "Social Compact" -- sounded very non-profit-like. So I investigated --

http://www.socialcompact.org/
Social Compact is a non-profit organization that breaks down barriers to public investment in underserved urban areas. Since its founding in 1990, the organization has become a powerful force for change in overlooked urban markets by delivering the reliable, representative, and up-to-the-minute information about a community’s economic health needed to make critically important investments possible and partnering with investors, municipalities, and community leaders to leverage this valuable information in the decision-making process.

I didn't go to this description right way. I went to their data and I was convinced they were a commercial entity fronting as non profit. Digging around though showed that they as much as they were tapped into the commercial interests, they had a larger, socially conscious orientation. A quote from their President (John Talmage) shows why I was confused:

"All communities are markets. And we must recognize them as such. If we don't recognize them as a market, then we've robbed them of the dignity of that community of in the economic system that we all participate in."
 (video on http://socialcompact.org/index.php/site/profile/category/landing/)

Would the author of this week's article  have a hard time embracing the idea that all communities are markets -- and that dignity equates to "participating in the economic system?"  I am fascinated by Social Compact's approach -- they seem to believe that these communities are not being targeted because the data isn't making the case and that the problem is that the data is bad -- inadequate. So they partner with local communities, their governments and economic development arms as well as private investors. Because everybody benefits.

That's the answer!  Malls in poor urban neighborhoods? Class -- let's discuss.