Breaking Free

Ultimately both brandscapes and brandfests attempt to produce atmospheres which target the modern day consumer; all while attempting to build extraordinary experiences which challenge the social and emotional norm of consumer products. Niketown in Chicago proposes a symbolic experience designed “to evoke in consumers a range of synergistic thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that encourage active engagement with its servicescape” (Sherry). A direct correlation can be seen between brandscapes/brandfests, and the idea of assigning a celebrity theme to a restaurant. Very similar to restaurants and museums which depend on an element of entertainment to suffice consumer needs and interests, brand name vendors such as Nike and Jeep are forced to immerse themselves within the ‘brandscape’ realm of advertisement.

Brandscapes/brandfests are powerful advertisement endeavors proposed to challenge the shopping norm, while at the same time architecturally respond to the contextual landscape in which they reside. While the exterior of NTC is designed to “conceal its internal wonders”, the interior mimics that of the town square, which “stimulates the feeling of strolling outdoors through a small-town shopping district” (Sherry). Niketown in Boston also reacts to its urban fabric by recreating the different stages of the Boston Marathon which can be experienced throughout the store as one travels around the main circulation armature of the space. In regards to brandfests, McAlexander comments “careful orchestration of a brandfest places the brand at the center of consumer activity in contexts that are relevant, or even central, to key aspects of the consumer’s identity” (McAlexander). Often the environment which a store or brandfest establishes can be convincing enough where consumers are willing to travel just for the experience to broaden their horizons and potentially break free of the shopping norm.

We "love" you You should LOVE us!!

The concept of creating a relationship between a brand name and the consumer has been a technique of marketers for many years. In recent years, the concept of organizing events surrounded around the experiences and the status of affiliation with a select product has proven affective as a marketing technique. With Mcalexander and Schouten’s analysis of Camp Jeep we can see the theme of entertainment play a dominant role in the advertisment of their brand and product itself. Similar to the idea of the UEC that we have previously studied, the incorporation of a relationship based on an atypical experience (outside the daily routine) can provide an opportunity for loyalty and trust between the consumer and producer. It can also provided an added incentive to return, or in the case of a retail chain, the incentive to spend more time in and around the products. As stated by the authors, “Reicheld and Sasser report that reducing customer defections by 5 percent can boost profits by 85 percent.” Numbers of return such as these can not be overlooked and the successfulness of incorporating entertainment into the sales of a brand name can not be denied. Brandfests do not limit themselves to the specific location in which they are held. They subsequently “leak” into our lives through nearly all forms of media such as television, movies and magazines. These, more normative forms of marketing, have become the primary vehicles for building the elitist status that is associated with many brandfest events. The bragging rights and sense of personal growth that seems to come from the involvement of these events are subconsciously engraved in our minds by constant media attention and the ties that are made with Hollywood excitement.

It Goes Both Ways

Branded environments are becoming more populous. I feel that there are two ways branded environments come about. One, the direction based on the reading, is the brand is established and the environment comes secondary to further support the brand and keep it alive; some brands that have used this direction are Nike, Coca-Cola, MGM and M&M. But the other one that I would like to more explore is the opposite, the direction in which the environment is established and the brand follows, examples being Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear; I also feel Las Vegas achieves this on a certain level. One could question the effectiveness of direction number two, stating that it is not as successful, but it also has to be realized these notable brand experiences belong to older brands, not the new babies of the environment-brand. It is also good to note that in the environment-brand approach, people will be more likely to make in store purchases, such as in the Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear because there are no distributors of their products that can offer markdowns or sales, their products are only sold by them. The Rainforest Café, for an example, also mark up their food prices, because they can. Why? The experience, because no where else can you sit in a room with fish tanks, waterfalls, moving animals, vines overhead, while it thunderstorms every fifteen minutes?

Something New and Different

As Americans gained shorter and shorter work weeks with it saw an increase in income, a push towards a lifestyle with increased leisure was able to emerge. The Urban Entertaiment Centers as described by Rubin, Gorman and Lawry in, “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” were the direct result of innovations, entrepreneurs and an increase in money flow. Consumers have a constant desire to see and experience new and exciting things all the time, which is the reason why the UEC’s continue to evolve today.

As innovation and technology continue to grow, what used to seem impractical in the entertainment community has now become a reality. These entertainment stores not only function as a place to go for shopping but also as an activity. In comparison to the mentioned Niketown, many toy stores now not only function as a store, but also as an amusement park. The ToysR’US in New York City contains its own Ferris wheel.

As these stores continue to grow and evolve they also function in bringing in countless consumers to an area that may have been lacking beforehand. As is the case with DestinyUSA, the mere addition of retail stores would not draw people to the area, but it is the inclusion of the many entertainment venues that will draw people in to see something entirely new and different.

Condensed Architecture

“Part real estate, part entertainment venture, urban entertainment centers are a novel development product that will soon make an appearance in cities across the United States.” Rubin 59
”means of revitalizing downtown retail and cultural areas and as a strategy for bringing residents of the region into the city for shopping, eating, and recreating.” Rubin 60

Ultimately, what do people want?
It seems that they want everything in a smaller and smaller and closer and closer space.
People want “a blend of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment options that can achieve a higher performance profile than these first-generation festival marketplaces or themed retail projects.” Rubin 62

But what does this mean for architecture? Before this concept of the mall became so popular, architecture was about a series of small interior spaces scattered across a large exterior space. The drive toward Urban Entertainment Center’s and large urban centers in general is what created our current architectural situation in which we now have that same series of small interior spaces but compacted into another, slightly larger, interior space. Space is being condensed. Architecture is condensing.

On page 9 of Wolf’s “”You are now entering the Entertainment Zone” he argues that movies in multiplexes having multiple showings make it more of a destination. I strongly disagree. I was recently speaking to the developers of the Westcott Cinema renovation on Westcott Street in Syracuse and they talked about how previous film showings in the theater, there would be an average of 6 people a night over a course of 6 weeks seeing a movie. But, if they made one night only they would sell out and it becomes more of an event. I have to agree with this; if you make something into an event and there is limited time to see it, the audience feels as if they must see it when it’s out! But if something is always playing, you keep telling yourself, “ow, I’ll go next week” until it’s not in the theater anymore and then you say, “well, it’ll be out on DVD in a few weeks so I’ll just rent it”, and then you don’t rent it, but instead stumble upon it a few months later, or less, after its release on cable and say, “oh, I really wanted to see that” and so you finally watch it. Just in my lifetime I have seen films go from taking nearly 1-2 years to go from the theater to the video store and now some movies are still in the theater when the movie is being release in video stores. Because entertainment can be accessed closer and closer to the individual and less and less movement and interaction needs to happen the individual is not going out. The novelty of seeing a movie on the big screen has lost all effect, because now, it seems that the benefits of home theater out weigh those of public theater. The quality at home is better, you can watch when you want, and you can pause and rewind at any moment and now we live in a society of people who use DVR and Pay-Per-View.

My point is that Wolf’s argument for the mega-mall is precisely mine against it. I think the true part of the megamall is more what Rubin, Gorman and Lawry were saying about having multiple amenities in one location. That is the benefit people are seeking by going to UEC’s. It is not quite about novelty anymore, especially when the same chain stores appear in every mall. It is more about the convenience of everything under one roof and I think most places realize that, because they are capitalizing not solely on forgotten novelty items but rather on new novelties surrounded by reassuring stores in one convenient location. Wolf finally gets at the point when he mentions the aspect of the recreation of the small town. People want to revert back to the small town, but now it is on the scale of suburbia.

UECs

This weeks readings focused on UECs (Urban Entertainment Center) and all three authors go into detail describing them. While reading the articles, it seemed to me that the UECs are basically the ultimate destination center for people and that it is the main attractions center in a certain area. The UECs are places such as the Mall Of America, Destiny USA, South China Mall, and all the mega malls that have 50 million square feet (exaggerating of course) are the types of places which are UECs. They have multiple functions along with retail stores as they include things such as bowling alleys, water parks, roller coasters, and etc. Cities such as Shanghai, Las Vegas, and NYC are UECs in a much bigger context because they contain a variety of entertainment centers such as casinos, clubs, bars, retail stores, restaurants, and all the other stuff that makes people want to come to these cities. Also, the skyscrapers and lights all around also help bring in people as well. People behind the UECs are the architects, developers, and the entertainment retailers, are what makes the UECs successful in its own way.

I don't have a television

“More and more, if you are looking for common ground with family or colleagues, it will be in a shared entertainment experience…” (Wolf 38)

In “The Entertainment Economy” Wolf touches on how this growing portion of our economy has altered our means of relating to each other. One of the reasons people form relationships is through shared interests. Wolf states that “entertainment products put the mass audience on the same wavelength and, while engaging the emotions, they replace the sense of shared community that is disappearing in regular life” (38). It seems that because of everyone’s shared interest in entertainment, that particular economy has been able to infiltrate every part of, at least, the middle class American world. Supposedly, all of us can find common ground through our desire for entertainment.

He talks about the “daily grid,” in which we have slots of time that are dedicated to certain activities. Checking in on news and other entertainment outlets, which now have a price and are definitely commodities, occupies our free time.(note) We enjoy this stuff and are drawn to it, but we also partake in entertainment in order to talk about it with other people.

Sharing entertainment with other people feels rewarding because we are having fun or relaxing with others, but are we also sacrificing something by paying for it? Has our mentality really shifted towards an increased need for entertainment? Perhaps. If so, what have we left behind? Wolf argues that we were more concerned with objects in the 80s and 90s. Entertainment has always been around, but in different forms and at different levels. This interest in entertainment products has only been exaggerated and pushed on by those who provide them and by our own desire for diversions to occupy our free time.

Note: Is there fun without spending money? I knew some kids a few years ago who had a dance party in the Abercrombie store at our very own Carousel Mall. Video:
abercrombie fun without money

PICK ME!

Just open your eyes or should I say eyeballs and you’ll see advertisements and logos. From product placement to endorsements, companies are fighting for you; more specifically, for you to remember them. Just as companies fight for the best quality coffee beans or computer chips, they also fight for space in your mind. Companies know there is just so much we as consumer can remember and try to make sure there name, logo, product or slogan is remembered.

If we shift scales to UEC (urban entertainment centers) or even cites (Las Vegas, Orlando, New York) we see the same fight occurring. Where should I plan a vacation makes you think “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” or “Everything is bigger in Texas.” This fight for your memory has resulted into this entertainment bonanza. Everywhere you turn, from a local pizza shop to a UEC wants to become a household name. “Google it,” “Can I have a Kleenex.” Most corporations and destinations have changed or modified their names for this fight. KFC, fedEX, USPS, EPA, NBC, SU, CIA, LA, NYC, ATL…and so on.

The winner of this fight is the consumer. Remember when you had to pay for a email address? Well now you could get one for free with unlimited hard drive space. Wal-mart sells dvds and cds below the price they pay just to get you into the store.

The fight for a good public image has transformed into a fight for your attention and memory and there is no real reason why we should think this fight we be over anytime soon. It does make you wonder how far companies are willing to go and how hard are they going to have to fight?

There is no i in TEAM

The UEC’s discussed in the Gotham article are another great example of the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation. From what I gathered from the article, the developers and the entertainment companies are the two major players. The developers have the connections on the setup/building side of the equation and the entertainment companies handling the furnishing of the complex. The high level of communication that must take place for a project of this size to be successful is something that every project could learn from. Isn’t it true that the more minds you have working on one task, the more resolved the product will be? Interdisciplinary interaction between major industries, i.e. entertainment and development, is the future of urban renewal. It is true that people are moving out of cities to more suburban areas, but these UEC’s should be successful in bringing a vast majority of people back to the city for their free time. The idea that people will be traveling long distances to these UEC’s ads another level of interdisciplinary communication between the city the UEC inhabits as well as the surrounding cities from with the consumer base will be pulled. A UEC is basically a conglomeration of everything fun for every age group, and interesting enough to hold your attention for 3-5 hours and make you want to come back. How could any of this be possible without a thorough investigation into everything retail by a multitude of cooperating organizations all aiming at a common goal; creating an Urban Entertainment Complex. I feel every discipline can learn from the reoccurrence of interdisciplinary work in retail and architecture.

extreme entertainment

The Urban Entertainment Center (UEC) is yet another parallel to Syracuse’s own Destiny USA. It’s interesting that this radical concept began in the early 90’s. When I visited places like Disney World as a child I was amazed by the surroundings that looked to me, like pages from popular Disney books and movies. Now it is interesting to read about the history of the UEC and the brains behind this forward thinking concept. When the article was written UEC’s were under development in 20 U.S. cities. At this rate it feels like one day every major city will at one level or another have its own Times Square. As a means of urban revitalization the UEC encompasses many aspects of a bustling city. It is advertisement, commercial, retail, and entertainment all in one. Bringing all of these aspects together is a logical and sustainable approach to design but branding these urban centers is a sour idea. What makes places like Time Square successful is it’s branding mix. Who wants to walk through a street corner and see that Nike has transcended the retail world to encompass restaurants, theatres, etc. If that were the case the UEC be reminiscent of a New Urbanist community. What the UEC has done is revolutionized the traditional town center by densifying touristy attractions. This radical concept is now popular culture and may one day be a standard building type in every major city. To highlight its success this typology should implement in all its UEC’s a diverse number of branding companies.

Step into the ZONE

In contemporary society, the name of the game has almost completely become ENTERTAINMENT. The music industry, the sports industry, the film industry, television, and radio have taken over the free time of most American families and have become some of the world largest and influential companies. In a close second place are companies that thrive off of American consumerism and our obsession with shopping. So, it only makes sense to combine their efforts and create Disney World like locations where the occupant can spend money and be entertained at the same time. The goal of all retail chains has always been to keep the customer in the store for the maximum time and to keep them coming back for more. What better way to do this then to combine their favorite pop star, their favorite movie, or their favorite television show with the experience of shopping. In the article “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” the authors make note of the soon to be established Sportscenter in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, this location is now known as ESPN ZONE and has flourished as an icon of the UEC that Rubin, Gorman, and Lawry have analyzed. The visitor can step into the studio of ESPN and witness, first hand, the filming of Sportscenter while they enjoy a burger or play basketball with their friends on the multiple indoor courts. Similar locations have developed all over the globe and are leading the industry of both consumerism and entertainment.

Sign of the Times

The notion of history is one we generally associate with a linear timeline. But what happens when the worn-out, the defunct, the historical, is reincarnated in altered form? The manufactured authenticity of the festival marketplace raises questions concerning its placement within an existing context, both historically and physically. In either case, it is necessary to assimilate the object into an already existing framework – but does the newly-historical supplant the existing historic, or are both skewed?
It is useful to distinguish between this construction’s place both in context and in situ. The “fetishized authenticity” of the festival marketplace described by Goss might characterize a recreation of a model of the past in which, as described in Barbara Kirshenblatt Gimblett’s Destination Culture, “the object is a part that stands in a contiguous relation to an absent whole that may or may not be recreated.” In this case, the boundaries of the marketplace are called into question, because in essence the entire city and its history could become a backdrop for a single space, and hence be assigned a new meaning. In context, however, the festival marketplace, regardless of form, seems to feed on nostalgia gleaned from a multitude of sighs and “Oh, this brings me back [to way before I was born].”
And although I’m ashamed to admit it, Faneuil Hall is always the first place I go when showing visitors around Boston, and I almost can’t imagine a visit to the city without a trip to, or at least through, the “historical” space. While the marketplace may rely on a “sense of historic public life,” I think it serves a greater purpose in reinvigorating an area left by the historical wayside. History, in my opinion, is not what we remember, but what we choose not to forget.

Entertainment in a Box

As large retail venues venture further and further away from relying on anchor stores to provide the stimulus for consumers to shop, festival marketplaces seem to be fueled by something the conventional mall is striving to capture, entertainment. Faneuil Hall in Boston is a perfect example of a marketplace which demonstrates “architectural openness [as] a metaphor for social inclusiveness” (Goss), while providing off the street entertainment with the attraction of exhibits, ethnic shows, specialty shops, and concerts. Interestingly enough Wolf quotes, “entertainment-not autos, not steel, not financial services- are fast becoming the driving wheel of the new world economy” (Wolf). While malls, restaurants, and museums attempt to gain popularity through the notion of providing ‘entertainment’, Wolf’s relation of entertainment to the auto and steel industry becomes seemingly important.

Throughout the years of technological innovation, both the automobile and steel industries have seen vast increases in production and profit due to the evolution of mass production. A direct comparison can be formed between the assembly line and the mass production of entertainment ventures such as the IMAX RIDEFILM. Originally developed as an amusement park ride/movie, IMAX has since “miniaturized the simulation theater into a 15-seat modular unit that fits into a 30-foot-by30-foot space that is less than 15 feet high” (Rubin). Evidently the entertainment industry has not strayed far from that of its predecessors, and it too has the capability of being mass produced, and used anywhere. The entertainment industry may very well be on its way to driving our ‘new world economy’ in that major retail venues all over the country desperately try to attract a certain amount of guests per day, while keeping them entertained long enough to perhaps buy a thing or two.

the thin defining line...

What really sparked questioning for me this week was the article Entertainment Returns to Gotham. Urban entertainment centers seem to be a rapidly growing trend. According to Rubin, Gorman, and Lawry’s classifications and described characteristics, DestiNY is not a mall, but another urban entertainment center. Which leads me to question where do we draw lines between shopping malls and UECs?

Any promenade lined with shops can indeed be called a mall. But we do not classify Main Street USA at Disneyland a mall do we? From my view, DestiNY is not a mega mall, for I see a shopping mall to be a destination purely driven by shopping in stores, not by side attractions, water parks, night life, and marinas. DestiNY and other ‘mega malls’ like The South China Mall are actually UECs and should not have the label mall attached at all for these places have the draw of shops but are also largely and mainly drawing in consumers by ‘entertainment districts’ and attractions; they are larger than some towns and require interior transport by monorail or boat. DestiNY is so large in area that it even has its own zip code. Now how can places like that be labeled as a ‘mall’?

The Ethicalization of Entertainmentization

“You don’t bring people half-way around the world to visit a zoo. You bring the zoo to them. San Diego is the perfect set. People already associate her beautiful city with animal attractions: San Diego Zoo, Sea World, San Diego Chargers...”
-Jurassic Park: The Lost World

With all the positive discussion of entertainment and 'fun' becoming the major economic driver of the world, I can't help but wish there was more distinction in what constitutes what one might call 'healthy' fun, as compared to 'degenerative' fun. Either can support a booming economy, but only one can improve the quality of life.

Degenerative fun, I believe, constitutes the majority of the entertainmentization that supports our economy today. This includes events like gambling, strip clubs, television, certain video games, 'leisure' shopping, NASCAR, and perhaps several other sports. I group these together saying that, for the most part, they all occupy time in a manner that not only doesn't improve one's life, but can actually detract from it. All of these have the potential for pretty awful addiction as well, and the results can be devastating. Gambling can bankrupt you, leisure shopping can lead you to rely on material goods for all of your life's satisfaction, television can occupy your time to the point where you're essentially hibernating in your free time, there are video games that desensitize you to truly gruesome violence and make it fun, and NASCAR is just generally wasteful of resources. Given, one can argue that all of these events have a positive social dimension that people are able to bond over and therefore that's positive, but people can bond and be social over just about anything, like um, squirrel slaughter.

On the side of what I would call 'healthy' fun, I would include a number of obvious items like exercise and visiting family for vacations, and some that can potentially overlap with the degenerative ones. Our generation is a visual generation, and there are television shows that are extremely educational, from National Geographic, to PBS Kids Shows (who didn't learn good moral values from Arthur?). I would even argue shows like 'The Daily Show' are healthy, in the respect that they are intelligently written and teach a lot about politics and the inherent problems with the global economy, just through a humorous lense. There are video games coming out these days, such as 'Spore', that are essentially going to be teaching Maya to kids in addition to the evolution of biology from single-celled organisms to entire galaxies. It's another product by Will Wright, maker of The Sims, which just so happened to be a factor for me (and others) deciding I was interested in designing architecture. More and more video games these days teach you wonderful things, from problem-solving to history without even making you think you're learning. Why? Because you're having fun. This is also how I felt visiting The Bodies exhibit while I was in Florida for break. The amount I learned from this visual, two hour excursion into the human body was equal to if not greater than everything I learned from a boring textbook in high school; and I had fun doing it.

This brings up the issue of the UEC, and how much more effective it is to bring fun events to people instead of making them travel. We prefer quicker doses of gratification and leisure, and it fits in our schedule easier. I'm now realizing in retrospect that over the course of doing the four readings for this week (in one session), I took eight different very short breaks, used up by youtube, facebook, guitar, and eating. How strange it is to think that 'eating' becomes thought of as a leisure activity purely because it's not spent doing 'productive' work, but merely fulfilling an instinct. Many of us in Architecture tend to think of sleeping the same way, and we can easily find ourselves feeling guilty for getting eight hours of sleep, thinking about the work that we could've gotten done if we had limited ourself to four. If we're considered a multitasking generation now, I'm frightened to think of the capabilities our children will have. Imagine no internet lag, never having to dial a phone number, never having to cook, everything activated by speech and simple hand gestures absolutely instantly...crazy stuff.

To see the future of computers, see here: http://www.perceptivepixel.com/

Movies and Missiles

When the entertainment industry is framed as the replacement for endless military spending, it doesn't sound so bad. Indeed, as Michael J. Wolf (any relation to Michael J. Fox?) puts it, "the missile in the silo just sits there gathering dust. You make a movie, on the other hand, and you can potentially release it again and again" (6). To some degree, movies and missiles play the same social role; they are both there to keep us safe. The missile keeps us safe from communists and terrorists while the movie keeps us safe from the boredom created by the very lifestyle that the missile is forcibly defending.

But why is it that entertainment took over when stealth bombers were no longer quite as essential? When we are faced with all this supposed free time, why do we spend it watching TV and movies, surfing the net, and reading news about the latest governor's sexual exploits? We do not create. We don't even destroy. We just sit there. Picture yourself watching a movie with your friends in a nice living room, sitting on nice couches and pillows. No one is talking. Now imagine the TV isn't there. There you all are sitting on a nice couch in a nice room surrounded by people you supposedly like, and all of you (instead of interacting) are sitting perfectly still, staring contentedly at the same point in space (for two hours).

Increasingly, the old saying "All the world's a stage" is becoming far too literal. There are few spaces that can be taken at face value; life consists of manufactured experiences meant to recreate some other point in space and time. Destiny USA's re-creation of Tuscany is a case-in-point. Rather than intervene in downtown Syracuse and enrich its own history and urbanism, Congel decides it is better to implant not only Italian architectural pastiche, but an entire Italian village, potentially at the cost of downtown's revitalization. But at the end of the day, downtown is not entertaining. The only part that is currently successful (Armory Square) is so only because of its concentration of restaurants and bars, places of consumptive entertainment.

___tainment

Hannigan, in “Shopertainment, Eatertainment, Edutainment,” looks at physical sites of consumption, targeting specifically, themed environments. In a sense, he focuses horizontally, looking at the different aspects of these particular spaces of consumption. We can look at these spaces in two related, but different ways: each environment is both different and the same. These themed environments try to be different from other places through an exaggeration of their articulation and by having a particular theme. Themed environments are different from one another and provide an escape from daily life because they are over-designed, so that the designer must infuse each detail with the theme or some kind of meaning. Perhaps they are the ultimate contemporary gesamtkunstwerk. The consumer goes to these places to be entertained by over-stimulation and by participating in a world that’s superficially different from their day-to-day life.

However, themed environments are also anesthetized and controlled. An over-arching concept for these environments involves McDonald’s operational model, which is described by “efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control (81).” Although searching for adventure and change, we are safe in these worlds, which run smoothly as calculated theatrical experiences. They must be safe so as to protect us from danger and to keep us happy. These themed environments (destination shopping malls, themed restaurants, and high-tech museums) aren’t places we go daily as consumers, so we enjoy our time spent there. So, in the end, after our visit, we can remember the ---tainment land as an exciting, entertaining experience, and, if we have the chance, enjoy it all over again, in the exact same way, when we return in the future.

cycle of death

The Au Bonheur des Dames was a large department store that was overtaking other small businesses around the area and making them go broke and forcing them to close down or even move, as explained by Zola. The Au Bonheur des Dames spread like a virus and it closed everything around the area and basically killed off smaller businesses. The Au Bonheur des Dames hired hundreds of people and therefore help for the smaller businesses were limited because more opportunities were given at the Au Bonheur des Dames. It's ridiculous how much these things exist today and also is manipulating architecture.
Large chain stores such as Hollister are in competition with other brand name clothing companies such as Abercrombie and Fitch as well as American Eagle. These stores are all aimed towards the younger audience and has put other clothing companies aimed at younger people a thing of the past. Small brands such as Von Dutch, JNCO, and BOSS were all clothing companies aimed at younger people in the past but now Abercrombie&Fitch, Hollister, and American Eagle is now the new brand that has put other clothing companies broke or close to it. The architecture is affected as well because it's aimed towards a younger class. Hollister has that surfer feel to it and Abercrombie and A.E both have that beach house feel to it to appeal to younger audiences. It wouldn't suprise me if another clothing company int he future forces A&E,Hollister, and Abercrombie out of business. THerefore, ti's in big endless cycle of death.....for companies.

“America Runs on Dunkin”

In Hannigan’s reading he exemplifies the influence “retailers as well as restaurateurs, arena and stadium managers and, increasingly educators and cultural institutions” hold in the everyday life of the consumer. With the pressing issue of traffic congestion starting mainly in the early 80’s, consumers began to look for other alternatives to shopping at large retail venues. To revive the image of shopping at a large venue, the retail industry responded through combining a foreign synthesis of entertainment and retail, adding a realm of ‘experience, or fantasy’ to a day of shopping. Equivalent to malls and town centers using entertainment as leverage, eateries around the country began to adopt a new typology: themed restaurants. Now the influence of entertainment has far surpassed solely retail stores, yet has spread too many different disciplines all trying to attract “a new breed of consumer”. Restaurants such as the Rain Forest Café, the Hard Rock Café, and Planet Hollywood all implemented the notion of themed eating, attempting to redefine the norm, as well as bring a “value-added component” to dining. As if themed dinners were not enough, many restaurants continued to improve their image by immersing themselves into the “celebrity-soaked, media-purveyed public life of America”.

The reading “Spatializing Commodity Chains” begins to distinguish between the many complexities associated with coffee as a major commodity worldwide. The author notes that “coffee offered to a guest in Tanzania is not the same commodity as that sipped in a food court in North America…” Coffee is proven to be a powerful, even seductive commodity worldwide, yet from nation to nation its image seems varying. Today, famous chef Rachael Ray can be seen and heard across the country raving about Dunkin Donuts and even going as far to say “America Runs on Dunkin”. It is without a question that marketing ploys such as the one used by Dunkin Donuts, exemplifies a by-product of earlier implementations of fame as a source of “entertainment” to lure in consumers.

The Public’s Not Complaining, Anyway…

In reading the entirety of Au Bonheur des Dames, I found myself entranced in a powerful firsthand experience of the rise of the department store from nearly every perspective imaginable. From the very real eyes of both someone like Bourras trying to keep the ‘Arts and Crafts’ side of retail alive to someone like Mouret who’s a genuinely humane person despite the all-consuming nature of his retail machine and then with Denise in the middle of it all. Then to see the ‘idea’ of the department store ‘improved’, from adding new departments, to various forms of advertising, to architectural gestures, the entire experience was truly a treat.

Zola makes a very clear argument for the inevitability of the department store as the “natural evolution of trade” (191), highlighting both the positive and negative aspects of it but ultimately, through his protagonist Denise, makes it clear that ultimately it is the public that benefits from this new phenomenon:

“At one time, prices were set by fifty firms, now they’re made by four or five, which have brought them down because of the power of their capital and the strength of their customer. And so much for the general public, that’s all!” Denise, p. 191

Now of course this is before the kind of major outsourcing that companies like Wal*Mart use to achieve such low prices at the cost of people’s lives in other countries, but the basic principle of why department stores are positive for the public is explained. And the fact of the matter is, there’s strength in numbers, both in people and from a monetary investment standpoint. In Chapter 7 where Robineau goes into competition with Au Bonheur des Dames over umbrellas, lowering the prices over and over until neither is making a profit and the customers are in glee, you know Robineau is doomed from the start because of the collateral Au Bonheur des Dames has in their 27 other departments which can always make up for losses in one department. Robineau can’t.

It is a pity we don’t get to see more competition between Au Bonheur des Dames and Les Quatre Saisons (Bouthemont’s rival firm established after he is fired) and the Bon Marche, because there is true importance in those prices set by “four or five firms” and not just one, because as I discussed in a previous blog post, things get scary when only one place carries a product that everyone needs and they can charge whatever they please. I wonder, after Mouret drove Robineau’s umbrellas out of business, what became of his prices? Did he keep them low because he seems to have far more of a ‘heart’ than the Walton Family does, or did he immediately skyrocket the prices in order to make the greatest profit? Is there ever a profit level that one can just be content with and level prices once they reach that point? I don’t think so, as Mouret shoots for having Au Bonheur des Dames make 1,000,000 francs in a single day, for no particular reason other than to say that it happened, and when he finally achieves it he doesn’t seem to gain any real satisfaction.

Still, the money-making strategies Mouret employs are extremely interesting to witness, especially considering many of them are ‘introduced’ in this department store but are still used today. On pg. 234 during Au Bonheur des Dames’ first major sale, Mouret in a last minute stroke of retail genius commands his employees to disorganize the items to get people to travel the store more. This reminded me of something I had thought during Professor Lonsway’s presentation of the Piggly Wiggly grocery store where I wondered if everything is in sequential order and everyone knows where everything is, how does the store make any unexpected sales? Mouret’s strategy of moving key items to unexpected spots—forcing the customer to pass through items they may never have seen before—is what I considered to be the alternative, but of course there is a limit to how ‘disorganized’ a place can be before the customer just gets angry. I find this strategy is used often with Wegman’s in Dewitt, as every time I go grocery shopping products seemed to be moved. Of course if its frozen it’s still in a freezer and if it’s cereal it’s still in the cereal aisle, but little movements from the last place I remembered them do in fact cause me to pass by something I didn’t even know they sold and on occasion, decide to try it out.

Also, practical humanitarianism, a concept discussed at length in Chapter 10, is something I find to be missing in today’s major chains. Mouret makes an effort to keep his employees healthy and happy, knowing that this will effect their ability and desire to sell products. When Denise becomes Buyer, she even plays a hand in helping Lhomme on pg. 349 set up an entire orchestra using only the staff of the Au Bonheur des Dames. Then various classes and a library are even set up purely for the enjoyment and education of the employees. Reading this, I couldn’t help but wonder how much more attractive a retail job might be if you knew that Target would give you free classes in Japanese or provide you with a wonderful retirement and pension plan (most contemporary department stores make every effort to keep their employees part-time such ‘luxuries’ are never required). In any case, it seems to be a wonderful concept of bonding to bring employees together in settings outside of their immediate professions. It makes me think of the Warehouse Architecture Theater, which Danton and I founded on that very idea that the architecture students who get accepted to Syracuse University have many talents that reach far beyond architecture and it’s a pity to let them go to waste just because we’re now in ‘Architecture’ and have to be ‘Architects’ and nothing else…

On a last note to this ever-long blog post, I found the ending of the book to be rather anti-climatic. To anyone else who read the entire book, I pose the question why did Zola end his story this way? It seemed like the majority of the story was about Au Bonheur des Dames and how it affects everyone in Denise’s world. Why then introduce a ‘love’ story between Denise and Mouret that doesn’t amount to anything yet plagues the last third of the book? For Denise to leave the Au Bonheur des Dames after ‘conquering’ it would seem an act of defiance—and that would have been a fine ending commenting on her ability to remain independent even after all she’s been through—so why end the story with Mouret reacting to Denise’s admittance of love by saying he is going to drag her back after her vacation. I’m rambling, but really, WHY?