Love this bit by Skip Wiley on a recent post of mine:
Think about it — as a Coke (or Pepsi) fan — how often do you have a choice, should you want such a beverage? Most of the time we’re a slave to what’s put on our plate (or in the soda machine).
Skip goes on to make the excellent point that the only purpose of the Coke Vs. Pepsi brand battle is to get you to simply choose a side and drink more soda. Period.
Thinking more about it, he’s right. I never actually buy bottled soda in the store because it’s too sweet and the caffeine tends to make me feel like I’m about to have a heart attack or something. But very occasionally I will go to order a fountain Coke from a restaurant and the waitress will say, “Pepsi okay?” And I will inevitably say yes because, well, it’s either Pepsi or nothing when Coke is not available. Neat little trick, no?
For more on this, check out my post on radical consumerism from last year sometime…
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Google vs. Yahoo is the new Coke vs. Pepsi
- Active in Various Forms of Activism
- The Pepsi One Tarot
- Online Top Poker Stars, Listings & Odds
- 12,000 Criminals Freed
18 Comments
Randomly: I love when people respond “Ugh, no, I hate Pepsi” as if it’s the most foreign thing in the world to them and if Coke is something completely different.
K, here comes a rant. It’s coming close to being scatterbrained and not completely 100% related to the topic, but it is what it is:
I’m not sure if your statement about Coke vs. Pepsi being a battle to get you to drink more soda is accurate. I think if you want something, generally it would be nice to be recommended something similar rather than something completely different. Wouldn’t it be weird if you went in and you said “I’d like a Coke” and they said “That’s nice, but wouldn’t you rather have water or perhaps a Go-gurt?”
I think if people want Pop/Soda/Cola, it makes sense to give it to them, but ask politely first if what you’re giving them isn’t exactly what they’re expecting. Isn’t that their choice? Sure, it’s not good for them, but they want it. I don’t think people really genuinely care deep down if their soda is generic or some competitive brand, as long as they know what they’re getting.
Being a graphic designer, I’ve come to terms with the fact that brands and companies are pretty malleable, and that the imaginary air of significance around any product can fall away at any moment. There really is no big-scary-plan behind these companies, just new ways of making “the product I promote” more likeable and marketable. (hopefully more honest along the way too…) I used to be a big conspiracy theorist before I actually got out there and realized that the media and the pop culture marketing industry is just doing its best to survive and sell products. Sure, there are companies that create things that people really don’t need, but what’s so wrong with that? Do we impose stricter standards on what can be sold? Or is that destroying freedom of speech/expression?
Let’s not forget that at the root of it all, companies are people with lives and families to support. I’m generally in the opinion that most people try to do the right thing, with a small radical group woven in that tries to do “the right thing for themselves” in order to satisfy any combination of weird psychological hangups. I don’t think it’s fair to villianize companies or products, but the occasional person within said companies, perhaps.
I see where you’re coming from, but I still have to disagree.The big scary plan is to get your money. Maybe they think they are doing us a great service by making this product available to the public, but that dosn’t change the fact that these products are crap and nobody would suffer if it were not around. More than likely the people who work for these companies really don’t care and just want a paycheck so they can go home and buy dinner for their families. Regardless of what they think about it, the plan is to get your hard earned money by offering you something you don’t need in a very suggestive way. i’m sure many people would agree that in order to eliminate crap being sold, we should be savy as consumers and ask ourselves whether or not we need it. It’s all about supply and demand, and if we reject it, all the batter. The problem is, there ARE schemes to get you to buy the product. Some of them simple and harmless (bright colours in the back of the store to attract you) and others a little more devious. How many times have you found you bought something, only later ask yourself why you would even think of purchasing something so useless? How many times have you walked into a store and felt a little more suggestive? I get that once in a while.
On an unrelated note, this post made me think about the illusion of choice. I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I believe if voting really changed anything, they would remove it. I think were given a small choice so we may believe we are making a big difference when we really have little say. On an individual level, we have little power. In groups we have more. I think while the original intentions behind it may have been sound, voting only serves to make the individual feel like they matter.
So you’re saying that products should be regulated and variety shouldn’t be offered? Well, it… takes money to manufacture things. And money to pay the people creating them. Technically, the plan is to get things out to people and keep making the product in order to support the company, its people, and the economy while providing a product that people enjoy and keeping it available when people want it. For whatever reason they decide to enjoy it.
Really? Coke and Pepsi? There are people out there that want Coke and Pepsi. They are the target market, and they are the reason the brand continues. If other people that aren’t part of the target market start drinking Coke & Pepsi, so be it. I’m not saying it’s “good for you.” It’s just what it is. And like ANYTHING else, if your life revolves around it, or you become dependent on it, it can be dangerous.
The interesting thing in all of this is the interjection of different personality types. There are people like us that are aware of marketing schemes, broken down into the people that see it as essential, and then a group that sees it as as viral and deceptive. Then there’s a group that doesn’t really ever think about marketing stuff, a group that appreciates commercials because they’re entertaining, a group that believes everything they hear on tv, and a group that actively pursues different avenues in order to combat consumerism.
The thing is… it’s not bad being any of these groups, though I am familiar with the tendency to put the more “gullible” groups BELOW more “aware” mentalities. It all comes down to what type of life you’re leading. The parts of our lives that we feel we need to control are the ones we pay attention to. But there are other places in your life that you’ve been told what to do that you’ve never really thought about before. We just expect them to go on without us in the background and “be there when we need them.” This extends beyond simple novelty products like Coke & Pepsi, of course, but the principle applies to novelty as well. Novelty is cultural and comes and goes. It’s okay if Coke & Pepsi goes off the market, it’s okay if it’s harmful to some people; the point is… it’s out there, it’s part of the world, and it’s available. It sounds like your solution is to remove all of the more harmful novelty products from society. Then what becomes our standard for “harmful products”? Do we start redefining novelty and start labeling minutely harmful things as “harmful”?
Uh, no I did not say that.
True and this applies to the realm of politics as well, particularly our false liberal versus conservative/Democan versus Republicrat landscape. Our illusion of “freedom of choice” really amounts to “freedom from choice” because our choices are already laid out for us, regardless of what we truly need or want. In addition, being locked into this dialectic, which pits two supposedly distinctive sides against one another, all conflict, discourse, and resolutions are guided and controlled by binary thinking and the illusion of “choice.”
It’s actually a highly relative point. Doesn’t this pretty much sum up our entire political process? The masses are entertained by sensationalist issue politics, while the rulers make all of the truly important decisions. Voters and opposition elements engage themselves in issues which really don’t matter, but only serve to make them feel as though they are making a difference.
It all comes down to… if you want something that’s not out there, you DO something about it. You ALWAYS have a choice. This “illusion of choice” argument is getting a little bit stale. It’s kindof like saying “Why aren’t there blue apples?” and then saying that there aren’t enough choices between apples because your whims aren’t satisfied by a particular system of organization. If you want a blue apple bad enough, I can bet you can figure out a way to make one.
Thanks for reminding me that if an argument is cliche, it’s obsolete.
now, I’m not sure if you are refering to my argument against the current voting system, or marketing schemes. All I am saying is that 1.We should be more aware marketing schemes, and I can’t see how awareness of your surroundings is wrong. 2. The individual should have more say in what the government does, as the major decisions are made by people we didn’t vote for. As for doing something about it, people are, and so am I by trying to educate myself. I don’t know where your blue apple analogy comes into it, because I’m not talking about making something that dosn’t exist, but revising something that is inneficient. You’ve been taking everything I have written out of context so far, and I can’t understand what’s wrong with what I am trying to say.
An argument supported by too many opinions (”useless”, “more than likely”, “devious”) can easily become stale. And I’m referring to both the voting system and the marketing schemes for products (although slightly more about the products), because they both employ marketing strategies. I just feel like your stance on the matter is very pessimistic and a very bleak view of the world. I’m not a big fan of feeling powerless by complaining about the limits of society.
Good companies don’t sit down and say “Now how do we get money from people?” they say “Now how can we attract our target market to our products and make them available in a decent price range that allows us to produce them and serve our target efficiently.” Bad companies usually don’t last very long. And you’re right, it’s good to be savvy. It’s important for savvy people to share information too, and communicate with companies and give feedback. If you don’t like a product or it breaks, write to the company and tell them. The worst that can happen is that you realize that they’re real people that listen to their consumers, the best that can happen is that you might even get your money back or a replacement.
There are so many options out there, and yes, knowledge is power. Awareness is good. But some peoples’ lives don’t really have any interest in awareness of certain subjects. I definitely agree with you about the government and how there needs to be more transparency and more cooperation with them in order for the individual to be heard again. But the media and consumerism are not our enemies… (and neither is the government) They’re just there because at one time we said we wanted something, and they said “sure.” That can always change. Yes, it can be revised. Yes, someone wanted that thing that you happen to think is crap. But you are obviously not their target market.
As for transparency in general, I think the best we’ve done so far is have consumer reports, reviews, the internet for research, studies, the FDA, and the Nutrition facts thing when it comes to choosing between Coke & Pepsi. They’re both not particularly good for you, it’s printed on the bottle, you can research it and find out more, and you have a choice not to drink it or not. They’re not going to print the word “crap” on a product just because a few people think it’s crap though.
My apologies for taking anything out of context. The blue apple analogy has to do with the fact that changing situations takes real effort, not casual effort. Voting is casual effort. Campaigning and marketing and organizing is much closer to real effort.
We’re a much more complicated and intricate society now, with much more availability than ever. Why do so many people feel like they don’t have enough choices? Look at supermarkets. Go to an impoverished 3rd World Country and try to order Coke or Pepsi and then come back and tell me whether or not there’s a legitimate illusion of choice going on here.
My apologies for stooping to a “dad” sort of comment, but it seemed appropriate (”Eat your dinner, there are starving children in Ethiopia”)
I take that back.
http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudefood/index.php?page=food/craps.htm
I’m sorry, but the idea that a person has no right to complain because s/he has it better than people in other countries seems like a cop out. It seems like an excuse to put down those who want to make it better. Why is a person who wants to improve on something “pessimistic”? Sure, it sounds unpleasant, but there are a lot of unpleasentries to be dealt with and most people would rather not think about. If you don’t mind, I have a few positive, common sense ideas that would improve my city immensly, and yet when it’s brought up to our members of parliment, it is shot down. So, naturally, I’m frusterated. It is not pessimistic to be frusterated. Also, it almost seems as if you are taking what I write as the sum of my worldview.
Regarding the badly named products, there’s a lot of that in Vice magazine.
I’m just trying to get you to see that the business/marketing world is not some evil overlord trying to sap you of your hard earned cash. You started out making it seem as such. And it’s not. And if you have some specific examples of where it is, I’d be happy to discuss that. I’m not saying I’d disagree with you. Believe me, I think cellphones are pretty much the devil.
But I’m not sure how exactly we got on improving cities, but I’m pretty sure that this went far far away from the Pepsi/Coke discussion. Politics are not my forte… so, I’m staying out of that, because that becomes slippery-slope world. But best of luck on continuing to improve your/our world.
Back to the basis of this conversation (products/choices), I still don’t see where we get off saying we don’t have choices. Are we that spoiled that we don’t see what choices we have? What other choices do we want anyway??
Right. Of course, they simply have our best interest at heart and want to help us and give us lots of things that we might need…all because they like us and care about us so much.
Ant, seriously. Read up on some public relations, marketing and advertising philosophy/literature. I can guarantee you that a little research would cure you of this bizarrely altruistic viewpoint of yours.
You just described my career, my education, and all of my friends. So, that’s where I’m coming from.
While I agree that not all companies are evil demons out to get us, surely you can agree that as J stated, they are not always looking out for our best interests. People with money and power want to hold on to that and get more, that’s a fact. What about the tobbaco companies? Car companies? Brand clothing companies, which rely on child labor in sweat shops? I’m not saying all companies are wretched, and I’m certainly not saying all the people who work there are devil worshippers who are trying to establish a new world order or anything. There are many buisnesses that are ethical. I’m definatly not saying you’re a bad person for your perfession.
As for us being spoiled, look, it’s not one or the other. It’s not “you either appreciate what you have, or your a spoiled brat who always wants more.” (and I’m not implying you made a personal attack on me or anything) If you see something wrong with anything around you, why would you not want to fix it? You said politcs is not your specialty, but I think politics is what it comes down to. Buisness and politics go hand in hand. We are NOT given real choice when it comes to voting. We are not given enough political say and it directly effects everyone.
Ant said:
Then you know that the point of advertising and marketing IS to make money and generate “addicts”/”repeat users” of respective products. This can be accomplished through a variety of means, into which deception and psychological manipulation largely figure.
Yes, that’s exactly why I do what I do. To turn you into my pawns through trickery.
Better watch out…
…
Many elements of the conversation that developer here also were explored in:
Are Marketers Evil People?
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/03/19/are-marketers-evil-people/
No doubt the ad campaigns are good for the business in general, but still, they are competitors. Pesonally, I prefer Coke any day. It’s srronger, has more of a kick, a better flavor, and as an added bonus it doesn’t go flat as quickly as Pepsi if you leave a portion for later. Left overnight, a Pepsi will almost certainly be flat, Coke will most often still have the kick.