Response to “The Conquest of Cool” By Justin Purvis
This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.
One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.
During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.
My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.
Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.
So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment