Sunday, April 6, 2008

How much is "value" worth?

It’s seems that value no longer has the same definition. Dictionary.com defines value first as “relative worth, merit, or importance,” the primary example being the value of a college education. Then the second definition is “monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade.” The point that I’m trying to make is that value is no longer defined in the first example. It is about the cheapest. When Zukin writes about the honest brokers she says that “they place themselves on our side in the endless struggle for value” (Zukin 170) They may be attempting to do so, but true value never actually comes into play. It seems that true value only comes into play when the individual has the time or the money to make the distinction. As I said, people claim to want to know the value of goods but they don’t actually want to know it. They want what is quick, easy, and cheap. Dr. Phil, the popular talk show host, satisfies his audience because he is the quick, easy, and free answer to real therapy. But he’s not an actual doctor. Yes, of course, he is real. But how does his false advertising of therapy benefit the public who views his show. Dr. Phil.

Reality is unimportant to Americans so long as what they get is cheap and easy. When I worked for Best Buy, 90% of the people who came in were looking for the cheapest of whatever they needed. Even when it was a leisure item they typically spent the big bucks on the fancy TV because it has Sony or Pioneer slapped on it. But then, even when you tell them they are only going to get the “store quality” or “full quality” of the product if they buy all the appropriate cables and services, they don’t listen. Does anyone sign up for that? Of course not. They have the name brand they want, and they got it quick and easy and, yes it looks better than that old 20-inch Curtis Mathis, but it is not being used efficiently to it highest potential. Yet, the individual spent a good amount of money on a it and if they had only spent a little bit more, they would have obtained a huge increase in quality.
Zukin claims that the Honest Brokers “represent our deepest longing for value” (Zukin 173) But again, value is too often tossed around.

The problem is that this concept of value only worked when it was new. But when using this honest broker technique, deception crops up because people want to advertise according to this standard of honest brokers but in reality they are simply lying. In the new play, “Mr. Nice Guy” by Alex Coulombe, you find a pre-film commercial at the beginning of the play, and on the bottom of the screen there are little asterisks* citing that these quotes are not actual quotes or all the little catches to what’s being advertised. This may just be a play but it touches on reality.

Because so many companies have used the honest approach while really scamming the public, the consumer no longer has time for being convinced about the value. Now, most people just figure they will get screwed either way so why not go with the cheaper thing, so they don’t regret it as much. They don’t want to be scammed. In current advertising, companies have gone so far that they are calling each other out on this “
fine print.” Companies are reading the fine print that the consumer may miss and bringing it to your attention to make their own product seem like the best option while also making their competition seem worse. But again, even those advertiser are hiding truths about their products.

The community mall article by Cohen and Borko is just reinforcing what was just stated. Americans want what is cheap, easy and quick and the lifestyle village provides that. It creates a microcosm of survival. Because the rise of suburbia has forced us into a situation in which you have to drive to Target and then find K-Mart and then go to Blockbuster and then drive all the way back home, Americans are wasting too much time, too much money for gas, and it was not as quick and easy as doing the same thing within walking distance, which is what the lifestyle village provides. Society has gotten so large and so spread out that the only way to deal with this many people is to begin breaking it up into villages. Villages have always existed, but because societies have become so dense in the past 100 years, we now are realizing that happiness lies in us reverting back to the idea of the village, where everything is close, small, convenient. The only problem is that economically we still live in a global market. Also “
the narrative control of an individual’s experience is arguably central to commercial success.” (Lonsway 255) So companies don’t want to lose their hold on their consumers. But if we could look inward and have these villages exist as local, self-sufficient entities it would be a step in the right direction.

No comments: