Wow! Check out this article. It talks about Tesco stickers being given to products during V-day. Employees started putting these on themselves but got chided as they themselves don't meet up to the "quality" standards.
Oh man this is the commodification of labor and the power of the Branding department at work.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Never Giving to the poor?
Recently came across an article about not ever giving to the poor. Despite the arbitary statement there are definitely some truths in the statement. My arguement in response to it (see the link) is the need for wisdom and discernment in giving.
Yongchang
Yongchang
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Divesting & Purging Ritual of Buildings: Case of Bukit Timah Campus
Consumption Culture and divesting rituals
In consumption culture we understand that there are rituals for commodities. Called divesting, these rituals seek to remove the meaning on a commoditiy before it is resold as a second hand, but new product. Because commodities are never really pure objects that provide utility when consumed but more than that are symbols and encapsulate within them social meanings and statements, there is a need to remove the symobols and meanings before reuse to another social context is possible. Whether this is ever truly completely successful or not is an issue that can be further explored. However what has been argued before is the idea of attempts at divorcing objects of their original meaning. Just like how second hand goods are often divorced from their previous owners and their previous meanings for the owners and the social context (ie familiy, friends, collegues etc) that those items might have held.
Urban Structures as objects of social meaning
But I was wondering how has our consumption culture has pushed this ideas the realm of urban studies, to buildings. Buildings themselves like any items in the social sphere are never deviod completely of utilitarian or economic uses. It is entirely concievable to see them to hold meanings and become symbols in the social context which they stand. Thus framed, they are embedded with meanings that become salient to the larger social envrionment they stand in.
Bukit Timah Campus
We look now at the case of the Bukit Timah campus in Singapore. A building rich within the educational history of the island's history. This campus had for many years changed hands. From the then Raffles College, to Singapore University (later names National University of Singapore), to NIE (National Institute of Education), to SMU (Singapore Management University) and then final back to NUS again. Definitely the building is rich in social meaning in the Singaporean context. From a macro level there is the idea of its social meanings in the National psyche. But then moving down layer upon layer of institution, the building has different meanings for each of them. For NUS it can point to their Genesis. For NIE and SMU it is a location of temporial importance that served them till their true campuses have been built in other parts of the country. Specifically for SMU, like NUS it serves as a "Genesis point" for their begining.
And further down, for individual students who walk through the campus doors, they too hold their own special meanings, no doubt of nostalgia for them.
Divesting Ritual in Bukit Timah
Recently, I've walked through the campus. As a student of SMU who studied in the Bukit Timah campus and the new campus in the city the place holds a special meaning for me. But empirically what I have seen when walking through the place is seeing a sort of "purging" and divesting of the meanings that the previous occupants (us) held on the place. Some observations:
1. Coloured white instead of its previously distinct brownish orange
2. Knocking down of walls that used to mark groups study rooms
3. Completely revamping the toilets from blue to white themed
4. Changing first levels study rooms and seminar rooms into offices
And of course, ultimately the removal of the distinctive SMU logo on what used to be the Acccountancy tower with the NUS logo. It would seem from my perspective, that someone had spent quite abit of effort purging any traces of SMU''s previous existance on the campus. This is of course important in allowing for new meanings to be forged as the new Law School moves in and sets its place. But yet, from a sociological perspective, this has interest underpinnings of power movements. Where once the dominant power has gained control of its trophy, it purges any visages of its competitor's existence to pave way for the new. This is especially important since SMU had been seen as the "Different" new kid on the block set to break the traditional educational mold of NUS. Indeed for lack of a better word, SMU seemed like an insurgent bent to break the "power" of the dominant educational institution that was NUS.
Not putting an ethical slant to this (for surely SMU would have purged any existence of NIE before it moved in and NIE of NUS before that), the process as it is seen is indeed one that is truly facinating.
I am not sure what other sociological implications my observations might bring. But this is indeed interesting for me. Wish I had brought my camera during that visit.
Yongchang
In consumption culture we understand that there are rituals for commodities. Called divesting, these rituals seek to remove the meaning on a commoditiy before it is resold as a second hand, but new product. Because commodities are never really pure objects that provide utility when consumed but more than that are symbols and encapsulate within them social meanings and statements, there is a need to remove the symobols and meanings before reuse to another social context is possible. Whether this is ever truly completely successful or not is an issue that can be further explored. However what has been argued before is the idea of attempts at divorcing objects of their original meaning. Just like how second hand goods are often divorced from their previous owners and their previous meanings for the owners and the social context (ie familiy, friends, collegues etc) that those items might have held.
Urban Structures as objects of social meaning
But I was wondering how has our consumption culture has pushed this ideas the realm of urban studies, to buildings. Buildings themselves like any items in the social sphere are never deviod completely of utilitarian or economic uses. It is entirely concievable to see them to hold meanings and become symbols in the social context which they stand. Thus framed, they are embedded with meanings that become salient to the larger social envrionment they stand in.
Bukit Timah Campus
We look now at the case of the Bukit Timah campus in Singapore. A building rich within the educational history of the island's history. This campus had for many years changed hands. From the then Raffles College, to Singapore University (later names National University of Singapore), to NIE (National Institute of Education), to SMU (Singapore Management University) and then final back to NUS again. Definitely the building is rich in social meaning in the Singaporean context. From a macro level there is the idea of its social meanings in the National psyche. But then moving down layer upon layer of institution, the building has different meanings for each of them. For NUS it can point to their Genesis. For NIE and SMU it is a location of temporial importance that served them till their true campuses have been built in other parts of the country. Specifically for SMU, like NUS it serves as a "Genesis point" for their begining.
And further down, for individual students who walk through the campus doors, they too hold their own special meanings, no doubt of nostalgia for them.
Divesting Ritual in Bukit Timah
Recently, I've walked through the campus. As a student of SMU who studied in the Bukit Timah campus and the new campus in the city the place holds a special meaning for me. But empirically what I have seen when walking through the place is seeing a sort of "purging" and divesting of the meanings that the previous occupants (us) held on the place. Some observations:
1. Coloured white instead of its previously distinct brownish orange
2. Knocking down of walls that used to mark groups study rooms
3. Completely revamping the toilets from blue to white themed
4. Changing first levels study rooms and seminar rooms into offices
And of course, ultimately the removal of the distinctive SMU logo on what used to be the Acccountancy tower with the NUS logo. It would seem from my perspective, that someone had spent quite abit of effort purging any traces of SMU''s previous existance on the campus. This is of course important in allowing for new meanings to be forged as the new Law School moves in and sets its place. But yet, from a sociological perspective, this has interest underpinnings of power movements. Where once the dominant power has gained control of its trophy, it purges any visages of its competitor's existence to pave way for the new. This is especially important since SMU had been seen as the "Different" new kid on the block set to break the traditional educational mold of NUS. Indeed for lack of a better word, SMU seemed like an insurgent bent to break the "power" of the dominant educational institution that was NUS.
Not putting an ethical slant to this (for surely SMU would have purged any existence of NIE before it moved in and NIE of NUS before that), the process as it is seen is indeed one that is truly facinating.
I am not sure what other sociological implications my observations might bring. But this is indeed interesting for me. Wish I had brought my camera during that visit.
Yongchang
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Regained Password & Some thoughts on Church
Haven't posted anything onn this blog for a while. The reason was that somehow i didn't realized the account to login to the blog was through the Google Account. That means I've been locked out of this blog for quite a while until now. Arhhh...the confusion.
Anyway, its now New Year's Eve's Eve. Few questions have crossed my mine since then on Churches in Singapore that I have noticed. Thought i pen them down here.
1. There appears to be a level of Isomorphisim in our churches (ie. Where organizations start copying one another). Many start having these things called Worship Teams, Outreach Teams or what ever you call it. Sermons from Pastors start looking similar with motivational slants. Music in church for congregational singing starts being contemporized.
The question i suppose is why?
My current take on this is that these have absolutely nothing to do with this is how the church should be like. But it has to do with churches responding to a percieved external "threat" or "challenge" whatever you might want to call it. I believe this is probably due to the rise of Mega Churches in Singapore. What i call the big 3. City Harvest Church, FCBC and New Creation Church.
Churches in the past mostly do not look like what many do now. "Contemporified" with the move towards being relevant.
Of course there are probably other social factors that contribute to such current church structures like the impact of Western organizational patterns on Singapore and the trickle down effect of these ideas into the Church.
More on this another time.
Yongchang
Anyway, its now New Year's Eve's Eve. Few questions have crossed my mine since then on Churches in Singapore that I have noticed. Thought i pen them down here.
1. There appears to be a level of Isomorphisim in our churches (ie. Where organizations start copying one another). Many start having these things called Worship Teams, Outreach Teams or what ever you call it. Sermons from Pastors start looking similar with motivational slants. Music in church for congregational singing starts being contemporized.
The question i suppose is why?
My current take on this is that these have absolutely nothing to do with this is how the church should be like. But it has to do with churches responding to a percieved external "threat" or "challenge" whatever you might want to call it. I believe this is probably due to the rise of Mega Churches in Singapore. What i call the big 3. City Harvest Church, FCBC and New Creation Church.
Churches in the past mostly do not look like what many do now. "Contemporified" with the move towards being relevant.
Of course there are probably other social factors that contribute to such current church structures like the impact of Western organizational patterns on Singapore and the trickle down effect of these ideas into the Church.
More on this another time.
Yongchang
Monday, December 18, 2006
Book Recommendation: Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser
Fast Food NationI've got a pretty interesting book to recommend. You can probably try Wikipedia to read some stuff on it or buy it off Amazon. Or borrow it from the library. Anyway it's a really interesting book on the Fast Food industry history, practices and how it impacts the American economy and culture.
One of the interesting things to me was how prevalent the practices mentioned in the book were. What is more enlightening was how much the book reminded of my experience back when I was working in Sandusky, Ohio at the Cedar Point theme park. It's kind of like those first hand experiences you have that makes the reading of the book more vivid and personal. All the exploitation, the practices, all became very much alive and very real.
In any case it does touch on the issues of macdonalization and marketing. Hopeful I can perhaps do a book review on this once I finish the book. Definitely a recommended read based on what I have read so far.
Yongchang
Notes: Picture from Amazon.com
Sunday, December 17, 2006
What Batman Begins has to do with Branding and Symbolism
Bought this movie quite sometime back, and it never fails to amaze me the parrallels in the movie with what branding means.
The Batman Story
The story is of course how Batman comes to be the symbol of the "Dark knight" that strikes terror in the heart of criminals. As the movie would have it, Bruce Wayne travels to a far away land in presumably Asia, to train in the art of fighting 600 men. To be given the "means to fight injustice". There he is told that as a man fighting injustice, he can be killed, corruptible and the ideals die with him. But if he becomes more than a man, a symbol, then he could truly strike terror in the hearts of criminals. He would in effect become, a legend. And of course the rest of the story has Bruce Wayne becoming the Dark knight to save his beloved Gotham city.
Of Batman & Brands
The parrallels of this subject to branding seems pretty obvious to me. Brands these days seek to become more than a mere product, more than a tangible produce that would "decay" with wear and tear. But if marketers would instead sell an ideal, a symbol, an experience, then the product is no longer a product, it is in effect an icon. The product becomes embedded into the symbol, the image. Like Starbucks selling the experience rather than the coffee, Nike selling the spirit of sports rather than mere sport apparell; the product is no longer a product, it become an ideal that the consumer aspires to.
Of Brands & Consumption
The end result of course, as many advertisers and numerous media critics like Naomi Klein (No Logo) have clearly stated, is a movement away from emphasizing tangible, functional value, but rather, an image. The end results on the market are numerous consumers rallying around (just like Gotham would) this new symbol, because it represents their aspirations, what they hope to be, their archetype ideal of themselves. The product, becomes very much secondary to the brand. Conspicous consumption therefore occurs right here. They consume to potray the image on themselves from which the brand symbolizes. The brand looks cool, I want to be cool, so I buy the brand so that that "coolness" of the brand rubs off on me. So I hope.
Implication to Society - Authencity & Rationality
Ultimately what is the effect of all these marketing of images and symbolism mean to society. To begin, conspicous consumption has always been around. People have always consumed what represents themselves. Since the time of the aristorcrats, people have flaunt their wealth through pomp audacious fashion just to seperate themselves from the masses.
With this moving into the masses, what will all this mean? Now everyone wants to mean something, be something. If I want to be this image, I will buy this brand, if I want to be that, I will buy that brand. The spin becomes the primary, a chasing after the intangible.
Need for Authencity
But what of authencity?
What of true functionality of a product?
What of true usefulness of a product?
Might we all become blind to what is really of use to us. What if a product is only so so, but another is of better quality but is shunned because its not as 'cool' or 'chic' for lack of a better word.
What happens if the product isn't really good for you? But you buy it and consume it because of the image it portrays? Like Macdonald's (Fast Food Nation by Eric Shlosser).
Need for rationality
From the above, I have assumed a level of rationality in image consumption. Advertising's impact on us is definitely more than a one sided affair. We can be molded by the media and in its commercial alter ego, the ads. If so, then where do we move towards in a social space increasingly encroached by the ad man.
So what then is the impact of all that symbolism, images and experience branding on our society? What happens to our minds and rational choice once bombarded with all of these. I'm not too sure, but my Professor once postulated its impact on democracy. That we become so caught up with images, we forget how to assess something rationally. Taking it further, our choices in social progress then becomes confined and bounded by the ad man's spin. Would we then ever be truly rational to choose? Or as Batman would have it, our choices bounded and based on legends?
Yongchang
The Batman Story
The story is of course how Batman comes to be the symbol of the "Dark knight" that strikes terror in the heart of criminals. As the movie would have it, Bruce Wayne travels to a far away land in presumably Asia, to train in the art of fighting 600 men. To be given the "means to fight injustice". There he is told that as a man fighting injustice, he can be killed, corruptible and the ideals die with him. But if he becomes more than a man, a symbol, then he could truly strike terror in the hearts of criminals. He would in effect become, a legend. And of course the rest of the story has Bruce Wayne becoming the Dark knight to save his beloved Gotham city.
Of Batman & Brands
The parrallels of this subject to branding seems pretty obvious to me. Brands these days seek to become more than a mere product, more than a tangible produce that would "decay" with wear and tear. But if marketers would instead sell an ideal, a symbol, an experience, then the product is no longer a product, it is in effect an icon. The product becomes embedded into the symbol, the image. Like Starbucks selling the experience rather than the coffee, Nike selling the spirit of sports rather than mere sport apparell; the product is no longer a product, it become an ideal that the consumer aspires to.
Of Brands & Consumption
The end result of course, as many advertisers and numerous media critics like Naomi Klein (No Logo) have clearly stated, is a movement away from emphasizing tangible, functional value, but rather, an image. The end results on the market are numerous consumers rallying around (just like Gotham would) this new symbol, because it represents their aspirations, what they hope to be, their archetype ideal of themselves. The product, becomes very much secondary to the brand. Conspicous consumption therefore occurs right here. They consume to potray the image on themselves from which the brand symbolizes. The brand looks cool, I want to be cool, so I buy the brand so that that "coolness" of the brand rubs off on me. So I hope.
Implication to Society - Authencity & Rationality
Ultimately what is the effect of all these marketing of images and symbolism mean to society. To begin, conspicous consumption has always been around. People have always consumed what represents themselves. Since the time of the aristorcrats, people have flaunt their wealth through pomp audacious fashion just to seperate themselves from the masses.
With this moving into the masses, what will all this mean? Now everyone wants to mean something, be something. If I want to be this image, I will buy this brand, if I want to be that, I will buy that brand. The spin becomes the primary, a chasing after the intangible.
Need for Authencity
But what of authencity?
What of true functionality of a product?
What of true usefulness of a product?
Might we all become blind to what is really of use to us. What if a product is only so so, but another is of better quality but is shunned because its not as 'cool' or 'chic' for lack of a better word.
What happens if the product isn't really good for you? But you buy it and consume it because of the image it portrays? Like Macdonald's (Fast Food Nation by Eric Shlosser).
Need for rationality
From the above, I have assumed a level of rationality in image consumption. Advertising's impact on us is definitely more than a one sided affair. We can be molded by the media and in its commercial alter ego, the ads. If so, then where do we move towards in a social space increasingly encroached by the ad man.
So what then is the impact of all that symbolism, images and experience branding on our society? What happens to our minds and rational choice once bombarded with all of these. I'm not too sure, but my Professor once postulated its impact on democracy. That we become so caught up with images, we forget how to assess something rationally. Taking it further, our choices in social progress then becomes confined and bounded by the ad man's spin. Would we then ever be truly rational to choose? Or as Batman would have it, our choices bounded and based on legends?
Yongchang
The Social Inquisitor
Social issues with regards to our Economy have always interested me. Issues on Marketing, Branding, Consumption behavior, Strategy and Globalization are all of key interest to me. This with particular respect to how they influence the Church and Society at large at this point and what will happen in the future. Why are they important? Perhaps because they are one of the key things that influence us in our time and age. Particularly, branding and globalization has of late been the daily mantra of our times. Closely related, are the ways by which firms use strategy to in this economic and social scape to influence our behavior to one up the the firm "down the street". Definitively inter-related, the key issue I want to know, is perhaps a philosophical one; "How did we get here?", "Where are we now?" and "Where are we heading". To this social inquiry, I dedicate this blog.Yongchang
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
