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

The beauty of the You Sell is that all of the work of it happens in the consumers’ own head. Phrases like “Your burger, your way” tell us nothing about the product itself, and in this way, marketers keep the idea of individuality infinitely customizable. (What kind of burger is it? Any kind! The you-tell-us kind!) To one consumer, “Your burger, your way” might mean a double cheeseburger with all the fixings; to another, it means nothing but ketchup. Burger King doesn’t even have to guess. Not only does the You Sell force each consumer to do the mental work of conceiving the burger they want, but it has the added bonus of making each one feel as though they—not Burger King—are the authority on burgers. Ultimately, the consumer’s choice of burger becomes that much more significant to them because it appears to convey something essential about who they are. If the sell is effective, consumers won’t understand that they’re not in control. What a great formula for a business.

The You Sell ignores the inherent contradiction that if everyone is special, no one is special. It knows that you will ignore it, too. Media theorists have suggested that the best aspirational ads—in dangling that dream world in front of our noses—can actually function to make people envious of the version of themselves they might become. Affirmational ads, on the other hand, present us with an idealized You and entice us to fall in love with our own reflections.

Promiscuous with its praise, the You Sell embraces everyone equally because everyone’s a potential sale. But one of the great paradoxes of the You Sell is that the more we all buy into it—and the more store-bought “individualism” we express—the more homogenous we become as a group. There can only be so many meaningful status signifiers in the public’s consciousness at a given time—and the more status a product or brand carries, the more people choose to incorporate it into their personal-identity scrapbooks. We all wind up using the same signifiers to send the message: “There’s no one else like me!”

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. The You Sell is enormously successful right now, but it is largely a byproduct of a generation of relative political calm, technological advances, and spectacular economic growth. It exists because, for years now, people have had cash to burn. Increases in real income and decreases in family size have allowed for a major boom in discretionary spending. In 1973, American families spent, on average, 62 per cent of their annual economic output on primary necessities like food, housing, and clothes, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2005, families spent only 49.6 percent—or just less than half. With so much extra cash, we had the luxury of allowing our needs to become more specialized, and less pragmatic. Faced as we are with a deeply uncertain economic future, this is a decidedly impractical mindset to hold.

And so, as tempting as it is to pin this consumer frenzy on the “corporate machine,” the You Sell is a machine we’ve all helped to build, and we feed it every day. “There’s a lot of tsk-tsking that goes on in popular conversation about how bad consumer society is but we’re on the producer side, too,” says Robert Kozinets, a marketing professor at York University’s Schulich School of Business. “There is no giant robotic presence that’s doing this to us. When we talk about how it came to be, well, people must’ve wanted a lot of stuff.” We’ve always known that stuff costs money. The difference now is that the inner voice that used to tell us we can’t afford something has been increasingly drowned out by a ubiquitous refrain, played over and over again: You’re worth it. From a marketer’s standpoint, nothing could be easier than saying it. As for the rest of us, the real question is: why are we so desperate to hear it?

An adapted excerpt from The Ego Boom: Why The World Really Does Revolve Around You (Key Porter) by Steve Maich and Lianne George, available on Jan. 27

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