For anything to be popular, it must give up the notion to be label as "elite" or "special." According to Wikipedia, the term "elite" is a fairly small, central group within a larger society. Its status is above the lower and middle class making it a privilege to possess membership in the elite class. Recently, Cartier, a diamond company, decides to advertise their products on Myspace. Cartier representatives argued that Myspace has the ability to reach thousands of people through their advertisements. Cartier already has 3,800 friends with hopes of achieving more through the social network. Although some may see that Cartier is taking a step forward in advertisement, objections such as the audience of Myspace are too young, can pose as a problem. Other diamond companies that are refusing to advertise on Myspace ask the same question: How can these young people afford the luxury items from Cartier? Thus, some of them switch over to sites such as ASmallWorld.com, a site dedicated to wealthy consumers. Cleary, wealthy people see MySpace’s media as a place to reach low to middle class people. In a sense, their theory is that luxurious items are reserved for the best. Thus, if diamonds are rare, then they are for the wealthiest. If diamonds are made available to everyone, then it would not consider a rare item, thus, losing it's face value. Or like someone [sorry i can't remember] said in class today, "perception of value." Items that are perceive to be popular, that are available to the majority of the population, and easily accessible are not rare. Meaning, they are not for the elite. The same theory can be apply to Cartier's advertisements on Myspace. Due to the perception that Myspace is a non-sophisticated medium with an audience consisting of "lawn mowers," the items they choose to advertise are essentially in the same category as the website's status.
The way I think of items or fashion that are "elite" or "special" are that they can be just as easily accessible and popular the next day. The way that the society catches up on news and technology, anything new today is old tomorrow. Surely, diamond companies can keep their prices on diamond at a certain amount to maintain its perception of rareness. I didn’t' mean to say that anything can suddenly gain popularity and loses its perception value but given that diamonds are suddenly in great demand [more than what it is now], a lot of people will have possession of that diamond. Thus, if it's popular, it's ultimately, doesn’t belong in the elite class. I personally don’t' care about items or fashion that are consider special or elite, but I find that there is a classification for these sort of things interesting. The fact that there is a site dedicated to serving wealthy consumers and the mentality to maintain a sense of eliteness, is just intriguing as it is ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That was a fabulous post. I really like how you began by defining "elite" because it really set the stage for what you were about to say.
Also, I found this statement (or perhaps I should just say "fact"?) to be interesting: "the items they choose to advertise are essentially in the same category as the website's status". That's true, but I think it's weird. It reminds me of the term "guilty by association". I guess one could argue that Cartier is at risk of being guilty of sleaziness by association with Myspace.
This too was very well-put: "The fact that there is a site dedicated to serving wealthy consumers and the mentality to maintain a sense of eliteness, is just intriguing as it is ridiculous." It IS ridiculous! Seriously, why is it that people that are practically banks with feet need to feel EXTRA special? It is so pathetic and arrogant that they rely on consumerist sites like asmallworld.com to maintain their sense of specialness. No wonder so many celebrities are depressed.
I disagree with your point on asmallworld.com. If celebrities, models, movie directors, etc. want to have their own social network, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. They may only allow certain people in, but other social networks have a similar system. On facebook, you can set up your privacy settings so no one can see you. The only way they can see you is if you invite them, so isn't that considered invitation only. For asmallworld, they only want people on that know each other already. So if you already have a friend on the site, then you'll get added, otherwise you won't be added. And there's no loss to you because you wouldn't have anyone to talk to on the site anyways.
These kind of situations happen all the time. If you go to certain restaurants, they won't let you in unless you are dressed a certain way. For instance, men have to be wearing a tie and suit. So, the restaurant is only letting in a certain class of people. It may not be invitation only, but it is still excluding certain people. asmallworld is no different from this. They have certain qualifications for people to enter and if you don't meet them, then you can't enter.
First off, I strongly agree with you that myspace is a social networking website that is corrupted with tons of useless advertisements. However, I believe that Cartier is rather smart to advertise on such a popular website with the majority composed of middle or lower class. I recently attended a seminar discussing reasons why most middle or lower class Americans stay poor for the most of their live. The greatest issue discussed is that these people has the greatest likelihood to spend their money on materialistic items instead of saving it. That being said, Cartier may realize this and is taking advantage of the situation, thus their decision to create a myspace page is ingenious business move on their part.
Ally, I am glad to see you take up another term, “popular” because this—like many of those we will analyze—is more complicated than it may at first seem. Additionally, I think you are right to read it in terms of “elite” because popular does, indeed, denote something that appeals to a more general audience, the “popular press” or “populous,” for example. To take this a bit further, what is the relationship between “general” and “elite,” the latter of which connotes “the best of”? Does this merely point to the reality that, at least in the U.S, the “general” public is not “elite”? This question reminds me of Dean’s comment, which greatly concerns me. I am curious about this seminar in which it was stated that middle to lower classes are likely to remain in their class positions because they buy “material” items instead of saving their money. This statement seems very difficult to substantiate, but more importantly, perhaps the ideological drive to ascend to an elite class (“if I just have a better car”) drives people to spend over their means. I would argue that companies like Cartier, who prompt the “middle to lower classes” to believe they actually can buy these items, contribute to—if not create—the dramatic and violent class stratification.
Post a Comment