It’s all about you

How the new narcissism became a marketer’s dream, and turned our economy on its head.

by Lianne George and Steve Maich on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:40pm - 13 Comments

It’s all about you

An exclusive excerpt.

Let’s face it, debt never was our friend, even though it pretended to be (No money down! Don’t pay ’til spring!). We wanted to believe it, and did, to the tune of $1.1 trillion (our national household debt). In 1980, the average Canadian was $5,470 in the hole, including mortgage debt. By 2007, that number had swelled by more than six times to $34,523. During this time, our perception of debt was transformed: once a bogeyman to be avoided at every turn, it’s now more like a member of the family, albeit a nagging one, who simply needs to be managed. Most often, this explosion of personal debt is chalked up to years of easy access to capital and low borrowing rates—and that certainly played a major role. But how do we account for our own increasing willingness to submerge ourselves in liabilities? Over the past quarter-century, we somehow warmed to the idea that the travesty of not living the life we imagined far outweighs the consequences of borrowing more than we can reasonably hope to repay. What changed?

The truth is, debt is only a symptom of a much more fundamental shift. Turn on any television set, read any magazine or newspaper, or venture online for even five minutes and you’ll begin to notice the language of entitlement. Everywhere we turn, it seems someone is confirming our inherent worthiness to us. Dell Computers, for instance, says in its “Purely You” campaign: “We don’t make technology for just anyone.We make it for only one. You.” Burger King tells us to “Have it your way.” Ford fawns, “Everything we do is driven by you.” Air Canada offers you the “Freedom to fly your own way.” AT&T transmits “Your true voice.” YouTube advocates that you “Broadcast Yourself.” Microsoft asks, “Where do you want to go today?” Pier 1 Imports reminds you, “It’s Your Thing.” TimeWarner Cable promises to unleash “The Power of You.” The Home Depot cheers you on with, “You can do it. We can help.” And Alpo, looking out for your beloved four-legged friends, asks, “Doesn’t your dog deserve Alpo?” The desired response to these slogans is always a variation on the same theme: Yes, I am. Yes, I can. Yes, I do. Yes, my dog does, too.

This is the “You Sell,” a pitch that has evolved over time to become the dominant theme in consumer culture. In its simplest terms, the You Sell is the message that you are an inherent VIP. Nobody else can tell you what to think or do. You deserve the best. You’re entitled to nothing less. You are unique—an original—and as such, each and every choice you make should be a reflection, an amplification, of your essential, irreplaceable self.

Also at Macleans.ca: Dude, where’s my job?

The You Sell is in ads for TV services that allow you to watch your shows on demand—“where you want, when you want.” It’s in commercials for retailers like Best Buy that invite you to “Get yours.” It’s in Nescafé ads that say, “It’s all about you,” and billboards for Scotiabank that tell you, “You’re richer than you think”—when the truth is, you’re probably not.

Where marketers used to primarily sell products or brand values, they’re now selling You—an idealized, self-actualized version of yourself—back to you. Whether the conduit is clothing, computers, credit cards, hotel rooms, software or furniture, when it comes to advertising, You are the real goods. In fact, You have become the only real product anyone is pushing.

Of course, advertising has always promised us a better life through stuff. But listen for it, and you’ll notice the pitch has changed. The shift is subtle, but powerful. Effective advertising has always involved strategic feats of deception. But the You Sell contains a different sort of lie, one that is significantly harder to spot since the wisdom of it seems to spring forth from your own head.

Lifestyle advertising used to be about the idea that if you buy a particular product, you will, by extension, acquire an array of desirable qualities associated with that product—glamour, intelligence, physical attractiveness, wit, personal strength. Think of beer commercials: with a pint of Labatt Blue, you too could join a log-cabin party in the Canadian Rockies populated by horny bikini-clad coeds. This is aspirational modelling—the kind you’d see in cigarette ads, where the men are manly and the women are liberated and the only thing ostensibly separating you from them is a lighter. Aspirational ads ask, “Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?”

The You Sell turns this model on its head—instead of being aspirational, it is affirmational. The message is always deferential. It says: You are already perfect, just as you are. You know it; the advertisers know it. Now, it’s just a matter of enhancing your inherent specialness and broadcasting it to the world via a kick-ass array of products.

Bookmark and Share
  • Gaunilon

    Excellent article. Makes we want to buy the book…but I am starting to question why I want to buy the book, and whether I really need to?

  • apater

    Ironically, everyones burger is exactly the same, even though we believe that the one we are swallowing is unique.

  • Paul

    The article is very inciteful. I’m anxious to read the book now to see where Maich and George take us. Excellent research and fine writing.

    • Victor

      Insightful

  • Ti-Guy

    Critics of consumer culture may be quick to decry this approach as a product of corporate psychological engineering. But in fact, consumerism is always about symbiosis, as much as the anti-consumerism movement would like to downplay the free will of the average buyer of stuff.

    I would question how innocent of psychological engineering the corporation is when the advertising rooted in narcissism is directed at children and adolescents, whose free will it is our responsibility to downplay or at least to set defined boundaries for. This type of advertising establishes consumer habits that carry right into adulthood. I’m also not quite clear just how innocent the corporation is with respect to the disappearance of alternatives to consumer culture, something that has characterised mass culture in the last 30 or so years and is ubiquitous. I find it a little unconvincing to keep blaming consumers for their choices when it’s quite clear there aren’t any substantial or real choices available.

    When we talk about how it came to be, well, people must’ve wanted a lot of stuff.”

    I really don’t find that facile explanation all that useful. I certainly didn’t want cookie-cutter big box stores everywhere that are impossible to shop at without a vehicle and yet, I’m forced to shop at them because that’s all there is. There’s more to this story than “this is what people wanted.”

    • Bill Simpson

      Ti-Guy,
      it is a myth that corporations are in control of this process through advertising, market manipulation or even this “psychological engineering” that you mention. In fact, you will find corporations are involved in a desperate never ending chase to keep up with the consumer (particularly he younger market, which is very volatile). Consumer choice is wider now than ever and there are more niche markets, trailing edges and so forth than ever. Advertising used to match the consumer to the product or brand; now the tables are turned and this is the result of the remarkable choice that the modern economy provides us.

      Of course there are times when your particular niche market is not being serviced in your area due to insufficient demand or has not been identified by a producer.

      This is not because alternatives to consumer culture have disappeared or been suppressed by the evil corporations, or because the sheep-like mass consumer has been conditioned by advertising – it is simply a gap in the market that no-one has filled.

      As for buying habits being conditioned in childhood and carried through to adulthood – almost none of the stores, brands, products that existed in my childhood are around any more (a fact I constantly bemoan) so I don’t see the force of that.

      • Ti-Guy

        I’m not making a moral judgement about consumption and as far as the corporation is concerned, it’s neither moral nor immoral. It’s amoral; it represents an entity (endowed with rights, no less) from which the morality of its actions cannot be predicted. To put it bluntly, it’s unintelligent.

        I’m just tired of people claiming that “this is what people wanted” is a satisfactory explanation . It’s just not good enough as an analysis. In fact, it’s an analysis that demonstrates the lack of human intelligence that the corporation is accused of. Coming from a business reporter at a media conglomerate, I’m not surprised.

  • quelips

    I agree with ti-guy. The article gives no mention to corporate purchasing power and lobbying that go hand in hand with advertising/marketing. For example, I live in Montreal and often go to Toronto to visit my friends. I am thoroughly disappointed that the only options available for food directly along the highway is from one of the fastfood/gas stations. Why is there no other ‘healthier” competition? I can no longer watch television because of the sheer volume and repetitiveness of advertising spaces. When and how did this change? It seems to me that money in the right place can give corporations a real competitive edge.

  • Raging Ranter

    It should be noted that much of the new narcissism has its roots in the self-esteem movement of the 1970s and 80s.

    And corporations most certainly do manipulate kids and adolescents. Don’t forget National Kids Day. This twisted idea first appeared about a decade ago, but retailers and toy makers, hiding behind the cover of gullible children’s advocacy and charity groups, are still promoting the idea. There rational is, “We have Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day, why not a Kids’ Day?”

    Here’s a typical Kids’ Day website:

    http://www.kidsday.net/

    Don’t let all the feel-good togetherness and family bonding BS fool you. Behind every promotion of National Kids’ Day or National Family Day or whatever sickly-sweet label they give it, lurks a toy manufacturer or retailer or giant theme park operator. You can bet on it.

  • Russ

    Apple customers are a great example of a group that tries to express individualism through their purchases but end up becoming part of a homogenous group. How many people have iPods and Macs nowadays?

  • Vince L

    Benjamin Barber – Consumed
    Daniel Bell – The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism
    Christopher Lasch – Culture of Narcissism

    Nuff said.

  • KT

    The writers of this article are concerned that computers haved become the domain of the masses now. Are they worried that because we the masses aspire for access to computers, we won’t be there to serve them french fries and clean their houses. This article seems more like an attack on democratization than a critique of consumer culture.

  • Pingback: NextReformation » disciplines of resistance.. subverting the Empire

From Macleans