On the sides of buses, inside Metro stations and over the radio, Ikea promotes its home furnishings by proclaiming "Change Begins at Home." In other Metro stations, advertisements using the words "hope" and "optimism" are splashed on walls and pillars -- with the O's replaced by Pepsi logos.
Around town and across the Internet, hope does not come free, and change will cost you.
Amy Fettig, a Washington lawyer who was out last Sunday buying a T-shirt from the Presidential Inaugural Committee's store, said, "America is excited about Obama, so this all makes sense because when Americans want to express their excitement, they turn to merchandising."
Among the Obama yo-yos and piggy banks, Ms. Fettig noticed the $70 tote bags by the designers Diane von Furstenberg and Tory Burch.
« The next big thing... | Main | Oscar Grant killer arrested » Every great movement...14 Jan 2009 08:00 am
Have we advanced to the racket phase already? Juliet Macur on change as rank, unadulterated materialism:
Comments (26)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Advertisers know how to latch onto a good brand, that's for sure. And remember, even John McCain was trying to get some of that "change" working for him in his campaign--that he came off as Pappy O'Daniel from O Brother, Where Art Thou! was unfortunate, if completely expected.
...and you on the Left thought capitalism is broken, lol
:)
A socilaist effecting a stronger capitalism. What a strange thing to happen? The more I hear those morons on Youtube calling Obama un-American, the more I wanna drink a cold beer.
I know a lot of Obama supporters don't like to hear it, but a fair amount of his popularity is celebrity driven. Large chunks of the electorate couldn't name the Chief Justice of the Supreme court, much less explain what Obama's stance on taxation is. But they read about him and his family in People magazine or saw a speech or two during the campaign.
If someone is a big supporter and understands what Obama wants to do, beyond the shallow "change" slogan, then there is some substance behind wearing a Obama t-shirt. But that is different than the trend chaser who sees the Obama brand as this season's in thing.
If more college kids trade their Che shirts for Obama-wear, then I will consider it all a good thing.
Maybe we should change it to:
"ends as an synergistic opportunity allowing for incentivized acquisition of branded lifestyle products."
Or some shit like that.
Coates
Cmon man I know good and hell well you have seen or heard about those commercials hawking "Obama plates" and "Obama coins" since Nov 4th. This kinda ish is what the hustlers LIVE for in this country
DougEMI
Its true that a lot of people were enamored with Obama but I think if you were to look back there were probably just as many uninformed voters who went for McCain if not more so. Don't believe for one second that all of those people that voted for McCain in Oklahoma, Missisppi and Alabama were Rhodes Scholars. And never forget that McCain was a celebrity for a time also.
What President, for that matter, isn't a celebrity in our age of celebrity? Wasn't there a talking GW Bush action figure that was not meant to be ironic?
Nope, I'd defintiely say it's still at the "business" phase. For an example of a racket, take a look at the latest rantings of Bobby Rush and Roland Burris.
Now there's a racket, I daresay.
@sg
Why did you quantify your statement "in this country" as if it doesn't happen every other place people are trying to make a living? I've traveled pretty extensively, developing world and up, and that kind of thing is as old as civilization itself.
@Doug
Whenever I see someone wearing a Che t-shirt, I always ask them if it's easier to blow up trains or make them run on time...after asking them if they know who the guy is, of course.
@Doug & sg
Instead of slapping back and forth about which politician gets exploited more, you should both instead concentrate the absolute abysmal state of civics education in the electorate. Doubly so that the most recent studies show that OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS tend to score up to five percent LESS than the body politic at simple questions about the Bill Of Rights.
A electorate of which more than 50% cannot correctly identify the three basic branches of government by name begs to be led by the nose.
Everyone came out of Iowa saying "change" because exit polls showed that's what voters wanted--very few voters believed we were on the right path.
So it's unsurprising that stores, searching around for a promotion that might actually work, would latch on. "What do people want right now?" "Change." "Okay. How can we sell them change? Oooh, home furnishings!" I'm not particularly appalled that Ikea is giving this a stab anymore than dancing polar bears in tweed would appall me; more appalled that anyone is falling for it except that I know my country men, citizens who watch Knight Rider and let Pushing Daisies die.
Scott
I said "in this country" because I was talking about the situation "in this country". As for slapping back and forth if you re read my post all I did was point out that both parties had uninformed voters voting for them. If you want to have a discussion about the poor state of education in this country well then as PEBO says thats a conversation I would love to have. But that would be thread jacking right now so I am sticking to the subject at hand which is people making money off of Obama's election. Its the American way.
Sg, I agree with you, though I think there is a bit of a difference in the groups that are attracted to each. The people who would sport Maverick gear would probably tend to be party hacks while Obama wearers are probably more what they would call opinion makers. From a clothing marketing standpoint, you would rather have the 15 - 34 year old demographic that Obama has than the gray hair market that would buy the McCain chachkis. Kind of like music and movies, the younger crowd buys more cd's than older people.
@sg
I was with you right up until your last statement. Why is it the American way if opportunists will go after things like this universally? Do you disagree with that?
I suppose I'm keying in on a perceived pejorative tone in that statement. If you're being, instead, positive in an non-ironic way, then I apologize.
Sarge has a good point. If Palin had been elected (with McCain to serve a few months beforehand, I suppose) just imagine what sort of memorabilia we'd be offered.
I think it's a combination of things. DougEMI's point about the proportion of younger voters convergences with advertiser preferences, which is 18-35. Since young people overwhelmingly supported the President-elect, advertisers are of course cashing in on this possibility. This was true even druing the primary season (I remember seeing a local Kia dealer doing a "change your lease" promotion or something like that). Now, not just change but "Yes We Can" has been turned into various forms of advertisement. I recall Queen Latifah advertising for the People's Choice Awards with "Yes We Can" referring to people's ability to vote for the winners. However, I will say that while "hope" and "change" became "Obama brands" during the course of the last year, I think the time of the year also has a little bit to do with it. The start of the new year always is full of people trying to change their lives; I think it's a bit of a perfect storm of Obama's slogans and the time of the year that have made this and overwhelming advertising season of "hope" and "change."
Scott, I saw some pretty boy get out of a Benz at the high end mall in the area with a Che shirt and head right for the California Pizza restaurant. What a fucking revolutionary.
Also, my point wasn't to call out Obama supporters as being dumber than McCain supporters(my annoyance with the electorate is quite bi-partisan), it was to rip on the hipsters who follow trends. It is clear to me that Obama would have won without this type of crowd, I just have always found them annoying and it has nothing to do with politics and more to do with mindlessly following trends. People who bought small dogs because of Paris Hilton, or drink piss-poor beer like PBR or sport spray-on orange tans.
I was very disappointed last week when I received my inauguration invitation and, upon closer reading, I realized that it was an invitation to buy Obama merchandise and stand on Pennsylvania Ave just like everyone else.
Scott
You keep trying to make it seem as if I am adding "and nowhere else" at the end of my sentences. It WAS pejorative about the way our country thrives on materialism. That doesn't say it doesn't happen elsewhere but why should I give a shit about what is happening in Spain when I live in America? Our country is a great one but it definitely has its faults and I for one don't mind pointing them out from time to time. And thats another great thing about our country. Our constituation allows and encourages me to do that.
Deborah
Caribou Barbie didn't even have to get elected. I saw somewhere that there was a Palin calendar somewhere flying off the shelves during Christmas.
It did not take but a blink of an eye for actual pieces of the World Trade Center to hit eBay
@sg
"why should I give a shit about what is happening in Spain when I live in America?"
Granted. But if you're using phrases like "the way OUR country thrives on materialism" I have to wonder if you either think we're bad because we're Americans (when it pretty much occurs everywhere else) or that you don't think we're bad because we're Americans, but should be held to some higher standard than the rest of the world by not being materialistic.
I'm not accusing you one way or the other, honestly, I'm just trying to figure out the take-away from your statements, given that materialism is alive and well all over.
I will cede that Americans tend to grovel at the alter of celebrity more overtly and ridiculously than most other cultures, but hell...we do pretty much everything more overtly and more ridiculously than everyone else. How else could we be the entertainment breadbasket for everyone with a power outlet?
T-NC: Please allow me to intrude with a couple of facts. Those designer bags and shirts were part of a fundraising effort where top name designers donated their designs to the campaign. I'm not sure how well it worked, but the point is that Tory Burch and Diane von Furstenburg were not just latching onto Obama's name and they weren't making any money off of the product sales.
I know, T-NC, that some of us are a little hard on you about spelling and grammar, so today it's my privilege to pick on somebody else -- I won't name names -- but this is a good lesson for lots of us. John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the United States. There is no such position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now getting this wrong is a small thing, but when I hear it I think, this is a person whose education is incomplete.
it was born a racket
I can't be the only one in here old enough (48) to remember that "Yes We Can" was itself appropriated from an Air Canada branding campaign in the 70s.
And any company the size of Pepsi knows you can't just grab the other guy's graphic and replace his "O" shaped logo with your own logo.... that shite will get you slapped with a copyright suit even if the other guy *is* a non-profit.
Davey: I'm old enough to remember Air Canada's "Yes We Can" slogan, but I do not in fact remember it. Because it was, you know, in . . . Canada.
The presumption here is that the sampled advertising is "rank, unadulterated materialism."
No, I do not follow.