Marketing

Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 23, 2007 3:07 PM

Obviously. Companies of all types target their marketing. If cigarettes/tobacco are bad then please ban them. Or, at least, put REAL restrictions on thier purchase by minors. If, however, they remain legal, and there is no sign from the Democrats -or Republicans- that they will be banned then the businesses will target 'key demographics' like anyone else. Yes, it is morally wrong to sell a death-product but right now it is legal.

ps: alcohol companies also target key demographics like: euphemistically called 'urban markets' (malt liquor), 'price conscious market' (fortified wines), yuppies (expensive grain alcohol vodka in nice bottle), rednecks (NASCAR-themed Busch tallboys), hunters ('hunting edition' 30pack beer cases), college kids (cheap beer), drink-drivers (iced down tall-boy singles in gas station convenience store coolers), girls (alco-pops), etc. Again, morally bad but 'its legal'?!?

This commenter has a great point, in response to an article titled The Tobacco Industry Targets Black America, but I'm left in a conundrum. Do I reply to the commenter, indicating her own ingrained othering of women by identifying "girls" as just another niche market like "hunters" or "rednecks", in an attempt to help educate that user or not post such an off-topic comment.

As a woman, I obviously identify with a number of groups on that little list - interestingly, both the price concious market and the yuppies - but that last example makes me wonder, does albrechtkrausse think women are multifaceted enough to fit in those other groups too?

As a woman that was raised to naturally assume that we're all equal, I have a very hard time even imagining that someone could identify an entire economic or social class that had no women, but then I see news accounts of the "Iranian people rioting over gas shortages" with no women present. I think, "that't not 'people' - 'people' includes women, how can you have 'people' without women?" I wonder that every time I hear anything about the Afgahn "people" supporting the Taliban. Are they talking about "people" or are they talking about men?

But that is very tangential, back to my point.

The choice I've made is obvious. My window for commenting is small - in a day or two, we'll all have moved on to something new, and the impact of a comment will be over. Anti-feminists ready to pounce on any and all weaknesses in an argument are all over Alternet. One only has to read the comments on any and all feminist posts on that site to learn that. I don't even know if I could write a comment that was both brief and made the point about the othering of women that I am trying so hard to make here.

Of course, this ignores the fact that a lot of those alco-pops feature guys drinking them in their advertisement - actually, a lot of alcohol ads seem to assume that men are the primary buyers, at least in bulk, of alcohol. Women, at best, drink the booze, usually while trying to be sexy (for men), as opposed to just for having a good time. Then again, thats not based on any study I did.

Have any of you seen that Coors [Light?] commercial? Both woman and man are excited that something turned blue, the woman about the pregnancy test, the man about his beer. The woman then walks off, slamming the door. The man shrugs and drinks his beer. My thought is "oh, she's off to call the abortion doctor" because thats what I would do if I found myself in a relationship with someone like that. Maybe that makes me a humorless feminist, maybe it is a stupid joke, maybe it is the promotion of male irresponsibility that the entirity of the mainstream media seems to be shoving at us thats making me mad. I'll say it, any man that cares more about some stupid beer than his wife/girlfriend's pregnancy doesn't deserve to procreate. But there, I guess, is an example of alcohol marketing to "guys".

And that does it for tonight.

The Britney Spears Show

This show has gotten really interesting lately. I was in the airport and I checked out a story about how Britney doesn't care that she no longer has custody of her kids. We're all supposed to be shocked, I guess. But like it or not, the act of having kids doesn't magically transform oneself into a mother. Men abandon their kids all the time, and women who don't want their kids often give them up for adoption. It doesn't make the kids any less valid as people, and these kids have one caring parent (their father) and are set for life. Honestly, so what if Britney wants to abandon that life and move on? The kids won't starve, in fact, they'll probably want for nothing.

If I were Britney, and in this state, I'd forget singing, I'd forget kids, and invest a good chunk of money in some stock, and make money that way, then live my life the way I wanted, read books, have parties, and have a good time. She'll never be able to run for office, thats for sure, but who the hell are we to judge her? If she never wanted kids, then she never wanted kids. As long as she helps pay for them (which I'm sure she is), then why the hell does it even matter?

stupid people do not change

by andrushka

Could you tell me what 's that has to do with President Carter? Further, thank God President Carter has grown into what he is today, that is a man of great humanity. Only stupid people do not change as they grow older. Too bad for you!

President [Me]

For a brief time in my life, and possibly always running under my surface, I've wanted to - I've thought about - being the president. I like to run for office, be in power over something, be responsible for something important.

award that they can't buy

by Jeanne

The right wing and their mouthpiece are green (not ecologically) with envy. When was the last time any one from that side of the intellectual or political fence has been recognized for anything that had to do with peace? It's an award that they can't buy, so they have to denigrate it. Fox Noise and all they represent are pathetic, backward and bellicose.

Get the Lead Out.... Of Lipstick

I'm inclined to believe the claim that humans injest more lead by drinking water, but really, do cosmetic manufacturers need to add to our lead consumption? Especially when it concerns women? Where are the pro-lifers complaining about such harms to fetuses from lead in lipstick? Oh, its only because whores wear lipstick, and their kids don't matter.

Too Many Consumer Lipsticks Have Lead, Consumer Group Says

Feminism on the ground

As a society, we've actually had the means to allow women to be free from the stricter confines of raising children for years - the condom was developed hundreds of years ago, in fact. Childcare as a profession is hardly new. I don't know much about breast pump technology, but it can't be that complicated.

The change now is the desire, mostly by women themselves, to be free from these confines. Yet women remain to be pressured by society to make unreasonable sacrifices themselves in order to reproduce.

This article, about the hostile environment that women face when they do reproduce illustrates an important point. More than an important point, a crucial one for feminists. For women to gain real equality in this society, we need to pay attention to reproduction. Business does not need to be so inflexible. It actually isn't that inflexible that it cannot allow an employee time every two or three hours - at most, three times during an 8-hour day - for people raising infants [the next generation of Americans, btw] to produce breastmilk.

The attitude of hostility to breastfeeding women is held even by other women, sometimes even by women who wouldn't otherwise think they were sexist, but it is the very epitomy of sexism. Women should not be obsessed with pregnancy and pregnancy should never hold women back. After all, men do not get held back when they want to have kids. If we, as women, are committed to ending the bullshit known as sexism, we need to make it a lot easier for women to maintain careers and reproduce.

The right to free speech is not to be confused with the right to an audience.

Yes. To those of us that would cry that ANY attempt to tell someone that something is not fit for print is some kind of censorship, I say, you're watering down your argument by standing for crap and insult.

(From a comment about the whole "Fuck Bush" thing in Colorado, but not really related to that. My opinion on that is that I think it is, at best, a quaint, but misplaced sentiment. At worst, it is sensationalist journalism.)

The Power of Attraction

Recently, there was a study released that confirmed that men choose their mate based on looks, which, I can only assume, means that women choose their mate based on something more. I don't know, I wasn't interested in reading the story.

But lets go with that assumption and extrapolate. It is pretty obvious that our goal in life is to promote the continued existance of the species, in some way or another. The simplest way to do that is to make more people. The way to make more people is to have sex. But what reproduction means is different for men than it is for women. Men do not need to alter their lives for a few years (9 months + nursing, which was the only way to feed babies for most of the existance of our species, except, of course, for the very very rich who had nursemaids) in order to procreate, so their main goal is finding the best possible mate in terms of overall health (including looks). Women look for a guy that is not only healthy, but likely to help out so that she isn't left with the kid, all by herself. And what does a pregnant or nursing woman need? She needs what we all need, food, shelter, and clothing, but she also needs time and relaxation. A pregnant woman needs MORE nourishment but is LESS likely to be able to get it all by herself. Women need someone to meet their basic needs on a daily basis during this time. Men only need the woman to be pregnant, healthy, and alive.

Of course, men know that the best mate is more than *just* good looking, but in the end, women are more concerned with their looks than men are. And men, partially freed from worrying about how they look, partially to attract women, do other things - all kinds of other things. Everyone needs a mate to continue the species, but were not interested in just any mate. So we have competition for mates. Women strive to be the best looking, the healthiest. Whereas men strive to prove that they can provide.

So that is the mating dance of the homo sapiens sapien.

Long ago, long before written history, long before agriculture, every adult member of our species needed to devote the entire day to obtaining enough calories to stay alive. Lets not forget that men usally needed to provide for more than just themselves while the women were hampered from later stages of pregancy. Nobody had the time to develop fancy bowls, religions, or governments. Those that did starved to death. But along the way, there came agriculture, loosely defined as the cultivation or maintenance of a food resource leading to the eventual harvesting. Cultivation took a varied amount of work, from the domestication of animals to waiting around for the salmon spawn. But what this meant was that one person could suddenly feed two, three, ten, one hundred. The people that didn't have to spend their entire day looking for food also had nothing to do. The results are all around us.

I feel we are at a very important milestone in the history of our species, much like those living during the advent of agriculture. Remember how women devote years of their lives to the care of new generations? Until only recenly, only the very very rich woman could afford to both carry on her own genes AND not devote her life to pregancy. One baby might take two years, significantly more if babies died in infancy or early childhood. Women have devoted their entire lives to one thing - procreation. But after thousands of years, we've filled up the planet. Oh, technically, we could handle more growth. Technically, we could make the entire planet like California.

Technically, which really implies ignoring the unmeasurable. Simply put, there are too many people NOW. I've been caught in traffic on a SATURDAY around here more than I care to remember. So not everyone needs to have a kid to perpetuate the species. In fact, a lot of people can do a lot more good with other activites. We also have a system that allows women to just assume that any pregnancy will not only go to term, but the baby that results will live into adulthood and even old age. [Of course, this is not necessiarly the case in a large segment of the world]

The result? Women do not need to devote their lives to pregnancy. And because we're homo sapiens sapiens, we want to do other things now. Men used to spend their time looking for calories for themselves and the women. Agriculture solved this problem thousands of years ago. Women spent their time being pregnant or nursing until about a hundred years ago. The difference? Look around.

"Jumping 0.9%"

I am SO FUCKING SICK of all the play-by-play of the Dow Jones jumping up a hundred or down fifty points.

-Source

Does anyone understand statistics in this dumb country? No? I didn't think so. See that graph? You see it?

13,000

Does anyone get it?

Read the beginning of that Wikipedia article. We've got 100 years of source data about a stupid game of controling people's lives and we think we know it all. Take a look at that graph again.

There are two types of bull markets. A secular bull market is a period in which the stock market index is continually reaching all-time highs with only brief periods of correction, as during the 1990s, and can last upwards of 15 years. A cyclical bull market is a period in which the stock market index is reaching 52-week or multi-year highs and may briefly peak at all-time highs before a rapid decline, as in the early 1970s. It usually occurs within relatively longer bear markets and lasts about three years.

That little dip in the early 21st century was NOT a correction. And I cannot see these "corrections" from the 1970s. This is a bunch of made up bullshit.

This is the stupidest shit in the world. Business is the biggest bunch of bullshit. At least my history thesis was about something that actually fucking happened.

And here is where I complained about work, or my lack thereof. I've set my bar really high, but they've set my bar really really low. So they think I'm doing great, but I feel like nothing is happening.

The world is full of complete idiots. All you have to do to know that is to read the comments on anything that gets a lot of comments, especially Alternet. The glut of morons complaining about "why is this on here" is enough to make one homicidal. If you didn't like the article, STFU, who gives a shit? Feminist articles or even blog posts garner that kind of response more than any other post. The obviousness of men wanting women to stop talking at all is nauseating and pathetic. I can't even talk about it anymore, it is getting to be a cliche. Our society is going to hell, or is already there.

You know what I am sick of? All of the articles about Iraq and our failed policy. It is the same thing over and over, with extra details added. At least the feminist articles provide a perspective that we haven't heard before. Or that people besides me and other intelligent women haven't already thought of. You know the difference? I DON'T READ THOSE ARTICLES because I know that other people DO care. I DON'T think I'm the center of the world or that my opinion is shared by the entire population. I'm NOT an entitled asshole, but maybe I ought to be. Too bad I was raised to RESPECT others. Thats why I had a hard time getting into SomethingAwful. It was a big penis party full of jackasses that thought that since they went through some antimosity in high school and obsessed over computer crap that they were entitled treat anyone that veered outside their tightly and ambiguously drawn lines like shit. I'm too old for that. I was too old for that at 5.

When I was growing up, I always assumed that adults knew more than I did - those older than me knew more than I did, but now I'm peaking - I'm old enough to be really really smart, and not just for my age. And now I'm looking around with my paltry 147 IQ and realizing just how stupid the rest of the world really is. No wonder I'm depressed.

And it is so obvious that the American Empire is in decline. Any anthropologist or historian can tell you, but we're debating things like it the surge worked. IF the surge worked. IF it fucking worked???? The soldiers could have been flinging their own shit instead of bullets and it would have had the same effect.

It doesn't take a fucking weatherman to see the goddamn weather.

What were the goals for the stupid "surge" of 20% more troops? Secure Baghdad so the government can get things done. Baghdad is not secure and the government hasn't gotten anything done. Anbar is secure, wonderful, did you know that Anbar is mostly desert? 1+1 still equals 2, but we're fucking debating this. They're all just fucking morons.

Back to the Dow. I'm sure you've heard of all the fuss over the jumps, and drops of the Dow in the last month. Here is how the Dow has acted over the past year, in real terms.



I'm not going to give a shit until the Dow goes down several hundred points in a few days. Period, end of story, STFU already.

What I've been saying

We need more female writers in the media.

Science!

Human-animal embryo study wins approval

Possibilities

PRO	CON
Represents an advance in biology	Tampers in the domain of "God" or just too much power for humans to have in general
This is really awesome!	Viruses can have a greater chance to mutate in a crossover manner in cells like this, it's really dangerous. (Source)
Learn more about what gives us conciousness, thus memory, thus the ability to learn more with each generation.	Diseases wipe out the majority of the population. Which means our species will continue on, but we will lose a lot of people and productivity. Which, from a rational viewpoint, isn't so bad, just as long as we live through it.

But from my viewpoint, our species will not exist forever, and we seem to be on a fast track of energy depletion (though solar is seeming to gain ground). I don't know how I will die, nor do most people. We all hope to live a long time, partially because we want to live through generations, partially because the idea of not being alive is horrifying. But we are increasingly consuming energy and space on our planet, and becoming more segmented and panicked. We're attacking each other more vigorously all over the globe, and especially within America (though American attacking within is more verbal than violent). We seem to be on the fast track to destruction, but we're really far off from that (this is potentially within the century, but probably further away), so we have time to slow down and increase our time, if we work together. If we work together... all of us, as equals, none of this "othering" crap.

Miss Teen South Carolina

I heard about this at my networking "lunch", a little event related to the new employee network at my company. We get put into a group of 4 and then the 4 of us decide a day and time to meet and talk. Both times it was me and three guys, one of which was white and the other two asian, but the demographics are not really a factor. The people are all in IT jobs, more so than me, even though we are all in the IT part of the company.

Anyway, the other three people had heard of this, and I hadn't, so after the event, I went home and looked it up. They also mentioned that she appeared on the Today Show and explained the situation. My take is that sure, she might be ditzy, but she apparently didn't hear most of the question, and in that light, her bullshit answer, created on the spot and without flinching, is almost impressive. She is, after all, 18 and has probably been trained, in the sickening pagent world, to be like this.

Everyone loves a good rant

Mostly when one can agree with the subject, of course. My former employee (the one that turned out to be sexist) did do a very impressive rant once about his experience being a TA and the undergraduates that completely failed to retain any of the information about research he provided.

Today, on Alternet, there was an article about Obama's stance on Cuba. I'm encouraged by the shifting tide right now, as represented by this piece. Suddenly, the rest of the country is realizing (or seems to be realizing, based on my vantage point) that those Anti-Castro Cuban-Americans in Florida are just disenfranchized slaveholders, waiting to go back and claim their unearned land and begin making money again. But that is beside my point here.

The last comment (well, when I read the post) included an interesting rant on the state of American "justice"

I'm all for patrotism, but why must I be a sheep. It seems we like to point the finger at Castro and Cuba for human rights violations that many states in this country abhere to themselves, but we call it justice because it was so-called decided by a 'jury of our peers' even as it was maniplilated by the politicians in our states that have such cruel laws on the books, and then we as citizens are told the laws were passed by the respresentatives we sent to to represent our interest and if we don't like the jobs our reps are doing we can vote them out of office at the next election but the laws that we passed will stay on the books even if they are cruel....and you know what, in the end nobody have to have responsibilty for anything.

-Source