Reading Response 8

1 – Basically, the parable of democracy of goods, as explained by Marchand, served as a way to get the less-fortunate people (those of lower class) to buy products that are advertised as being used by the overly wealthy class. The parable explained that there are no restrictions as to who can buy or use this product, it was advertised to everyone. This gave purchasers a sense of equality with the top of the social hierarchy class. These advertisements promoted products that would make people feel, “..as healthy, as charming, as free from social offense as the very ‘nicest’ (richest) people, simply by using a product anyone could afford,” according to Marchand. This can be translated as a way of making people feel like they are on the same level as those who are above them.

2 – I think that the parable of the democracy of goods makes American culture more egalitarian. This is because the wealthy class is much larger than the middle and lower class so when the middle and lower class buy products in an attempt to be like their upper-classmen, they are essentially promoting the equality of people. Marchand explains that the parable of the democracy of goods was guilty of having an audience of ‘everyone’. The use of ‘everyone’ put citizens of America into one category. This in turn meant that they (everyone) sought after these same goods which can be interpreted as everyone sought after equality; same problems, same goods, same social status, everyone.

1. The parable of the democracy of goods is a tactic used by advertisers when marketing products to consumers. They want you to “keep up with the Jones’” by buying their product. Essentially, the marketing tactic is meant to first, make you think that the product being advertised is used often by the rich and famous. Next, they want you to know that you too can purchase this product which has been made affordable to you. Their “intent” is to make you feel as if you are on the same level as the rich because you are using a product or products they use.

2. I feel that this parable of the democracy of goods makes our American hierarchy more defined. Advertisers may claim that the products they are marketing are being used by the elite, but most likely, they are not. Their ads are only meant to make the average consumers feel as though they can be apart of that group too. These ads do nothing to close the gaps between these classes. It only hides how differentiated our power structure is.

1.)When Marchand is talking about the “parable of the democracy of goods”, he is referring to the access certain people have to consumer goods. This statement basically says that everyone, poor and rich alike, can aquire the same quality basic consumer goods if they spend their money wisely. While the rich may be able to afford much more lavish lifestyles and luxury goods, there are certain products that are available to everyone no matter what their social status is. The appeal of these products to people in the lower class is the fact that advertising is convincing them that the rich use this certain product too, which makes the poor feel equal to the rich in some way.

2.)The parable of the democracy of goods definitely reinforces a power structure. In these ads, there is a distinct line drawn between the rich and the poor, even though these products are promoted to be used by both. They show that there is in fact a group of people that have more money and are better off than others with less money. If it were truly egalitarian, there would make no distinction between the rich and poor. These products should be advertised as something that everyone in general uses, and not just the rich.

*The parable of the democracy of goods*
Over and over, advertisers manipulate Americans’ obsession with obtaining material wealth equal to that of the rich in order to sell more products. The success of this advertising formula has made it a fixture within advertisers’ repertoires…and thereby perpetuated that American pursuit of material happiness that has so come to define our country.
Doesn’t sound very democratic? According to Solomon, this seeming paradox makes up the very core of American democracy. Marchand’s discussion reminded me very much of Solomon’s article––of the idea that democracy provides a breeding ground for people to foster a desire for individual distinction. In a society where everyone is equal, other inequalities, once put in relief, grow more prominent. People like to be placed in “Us” and “Them” categories –– and what’s better than being one of “Us”? Being one of “Them” –– at least when "They" have greater material wealth.

Not only does it reinforce the American social structure, this “parable” is precisely what has made the American obsession with gaining material wealth what it is. The parable IS hegemony –– or at least serves as the perfect representative of it. Without such advertisements, the lower classes wouldn’t be as likely to aspire to be like the upper classes, or at least wouldn’t know how (according to advertisers, anyway). It could be argued, perhaps, that because everyone aspires to the same thing –– that gleaming “400”–– society has been made more egalitarian…but since such a small, imaginary elite group (completely fabricated by advertisers, perhaps?) seems to dictate the aspirations of all the rest of the classes, I’m fairly certain that the hegemonic structures –– and strictures –– put in place and perpetuated by the “parable” are apparent.

1. The parable of the democracy of goods refers to the idyllic world created for Americans by advertisers. In this world, a certain product or service becomes linked to social class and exclusivity by appealing to the masses. Goods are seen as the ultimate democratic equalizer, where a product is shown being used by the rich and now available to the middle class and poor. Or, the rich are shown to encounter problems that those of lower social and economic standing also face, leveling their apparent differences with a product. The lesson of this parable is directed at the audience, exclusively middle-class and yearning for the prestige of fame and fortune, that by connecting to the upper class in any way, or more specifically with THIS product or service, will make them both distinct and better.

2. The parable only serves to highlight the differences of class and wealth intrinsic in the hegemonic power structures prevalent in society. The audience is asked to relate to the subject of these ads, but this "democratizing" of the two only exists due to the believed difference between the groups. Why does the audience seek to relate to a view of society different from their own? Only by reinforcing this disparity between one class and another, one economic level and another, can these ads work. A coffee used by the upper class is available to the general public and people are supposed to jump at the chance to partake. The higher class are put on a pedestal, but we catch a slight view of the fallibility (such as the basics of human life, i.e. Body Odor) that brings us within reach of their majesty. Why the hell do we care if the rich stink? Because we stink, and maybe that's okay if a millionaire does too.
So even as this "democracy of goods" lets us believe we're on par with the rich and famous, the desire and drive behind these ads simply reinforces the power structures already in place that make us compare and contrast ourselves to the higher class anyway. Damn bourgeois.

The "parable of the democracy of goods" as defined by Marchland, is the idea that people want to be like the elite upper class, so they desire to obtain the same goods that upper class people are perceived to have. Several advertisements were included in the article illustrating this principle - one example is the ad for Chase & Sanborn's Coffee - they say that you may have a modest lifestyle, but drinking their coffee puts you on the same level as kings and queens.

The parable of the democracy of goods makes American culture more egalitarian through ideally providing the consumer a way to become equal with the upper class. In being able to buy the same goods, the consumer at least gets to experience a small part of the upper class culture, and in effect, giving the consumer the feeling that they are in fellowship with the upper class. This approach to appealing to the consumer sells to what people desire in our consumerist culture - to get more stuff and to have really high quality stuff.

"The parable of the democracy of goods" is essentially a marketing scheme. Advertisers will market certain products in a way which minimizes the the affect of the wealth of the consumer. That is to say, no matter how rich or poor the consumer may be, they can still afford the product and there is no better product. A couple examples used by Marchand include Ivory soap and toilet seats. He gives the example of an advertising campaign by Ivory which said even though 'Sally' is not a wealthy as her neighbor, she could still have just as good of hands because of her use of Ivory soap gave her the best hands possible no matter how much money was spent. Also, the toilet seat example claimed that this particular seat was the best and money could not buy a better one. Thus, the poor or those who aren't extremely wealthy can afford the 'best of the best' products on the market.

This idea, the idea of "a democracy of goods" only reinforces the power structure in the United States. Not only are the products marketed toward a lower income class because of their low prices, but also because they are 'like' the products used by the upper class people. This type of marketing assumes (most likely correctly) that every consumer wants to have the best of everything, and equates having the best with being wealthy. The poor want to live like the wealthy. How could this possibly be reinforcing an egalitarian community if it is promoting a specific type of lifestyle? It only reinforces the idea that America is divided by wealth, and those who are wealthy and those who are not wealthy do not live equally.

The “parable of the democracy of goods” basically means that those who once felt they could not afford higher quality products, were able to now. This way, they were able to enjoy what those of higher class were already enjoying. This came from the assistance of mass manufacturing.

I think that this approach to advertising enforces hegemonic power structures. They state that acquiring materials will make a person more like the higher class of society, which is rather materialistic. I can see how one could interpret this as being more egalitarian because it tries to lessen the gap between social classes but at the same time it’s putting that materialistic attitude on the lower class.

It was my understanding that the parable of the democracy of goods is a method of advertising where a product appears to give the benefits of "High life" or luxury even thought it can be enjoyed by anyone. The beginning of the article gives the example of Cream of Wheat and how it was fed to Livingston III. The idea was that the product was good enough for the heir, yet could be enjoyed by anyone. Basically it means that regardless of who you are, or what your stature is, everybody can enjoy the same pleasures that come from a product.

I am not sure that it makes American culture more or less of either, but if i had to choose, i would say more egalitarian. The advertising campaigns reinforce the fact that you can enjoy this product regardless of who you are, which supports the notion of egalitarianism. They want lower class people to feel as though they are as special as upper class people, so they are really trying to create equality. The one thing that bothers me about this, however is that this type of advertising wouldn't work if society was truly egalitarian.

1. The idea of the democracy of goods is that the upper class's goods or merchandise are now available to the lower class. Also since now the lower class owns this product that used to be exclusive to the upper class they now have become part of the upper class. The advertisments that used this concept would say thing like you can wash you face with the same soap as rich so therefore you are part of the rich.

2. It reinforces the pwer structures because the more the advertisers say that these are the goods the rich use the more the lower classes want to become like them. Even if these products were used by the upper classes the fact that now the lower classes were using it would cause the upper classes to try to make themselves better by purchasing and creating new and improved product therefore the structure will always exist. They also may become more pronouced because of the fact that most upper class want to stay upper class and will do anything in there power to stay that way.

The parable refers to an ad making people think that a product will solve everyone's problems. If you take or have Product X, it will make you rich, happy, nice, and problem-free, and if you don't have it, you won't be. It is always affordable for the target audience, and you need this product.

The parable of the democracy of goods makes the American culture more hegemonic than egalitarian, because it is the strive to be the best, the strive to be rich, happy, nice, and problem-free. Although everyone wants this, one's primary concern is many times for his or herself. If it was more egalitarian, the goal would be to make you want to buy this product for everyone else. But the goal is to make you want to buy this product for yourself, therefore it is more striving to be dominant over someone else.

What Marchand means by the "parable of the democracy of goods" is how marketer's target the less wealthy when they are trying to sell them products that are supposedly used by the more wealthy. They play on the idea that the wealthy purchase products that give them class and prestige and if they are purchased by those who are less fortunate, then they would also be granted the same prestige and class of their wealthier counterparts.

I think the parable reinforces a hegemonic powers structure. It poses as a egalitarian doctrine because it appears as though it closes the gap between the wealthy and the less wealthy through the products that are being purchased, but all it really does is mask the control the wealthy have over the less wealthy. The wealthy are the leaders, purchasing products that will give them class and prestige, and as soon as it becomes mainstream by the rest of society it loses it's prestige and the wealthy purchase something else. Or in the case of the certain items, it becomes a new classification in the hegemonic scheme of things. If most people have iPods and they are considered "the thing to have," then the people that don't have iPods will be looked at with criticism because they aren't conforming the ideal which is being controlled and influenced by those with the money, in other words "they are uncool." Another example of this would be cell phones. It's doesn't matter why you may not have one, just not having one seems unusual in our society today, partly because of this type of advertising and brand recognition.

1. According to Marchand, the people of less wealth feel better because they are using the same products that the elites/the wealthy people use. It almost equates these products, such as Ivory Soap, to a chunk of gold, that you are washing your body with.
2. The readings have become more and more about the acquisition of the “American Dream.” It’s like we are succumbing to the oligarchic fantasy, and allowing them to embrace the “knowledge” that they are better than the non-elites. I think this gives lots of power to the elites. They know how to manipulate the non-elites, into buying their goods, which makes the rich richer.

1) It appears that Marchand is talking about using goods to fulfill the American dream. By using this brand of advertising companies are allowing people to feel like they are on the up-and-up. By purchasing particular products they are moving to some hypothetical elite. The catch is that this hypothetical elite is not nearly as elite anymore since there are so many people in it. However, they wouldn't mention that in the advertising. So the parable is that by having these goods you are attaining some sort of social/economic status. Instead of marketing to the 400 richest people in the country, they are targeting the entire upper 50% of the country and attempting to make them feel like they are in the top 95%.

2) I believe that it reinforces the hegemonic power structure. This comes down to lying to the masses. This isn't being marketed to all of American culture. The lower 50% of the wealth in the country won't be buying these products. They have no chance of reaching this higher echelon of power and wealth simply by spending the little money they do have on superfluous status symbols.

Then for the upper 50%, simply owning a few nice things does not give you power or wealth. Yes, they are status symbols, but does buying a nice toilet seat put you in that upper echelon? No, it doesn't. These advertisers are selling lies. They are building up the concept that these items will give you status, but the very fact that its being marketed successfully to a large audience insures that it will not be a status symbol. Over some short period of time it will most simply be something that is expected.

The parable of the democracy of goods has a very simple explanation. Basically, America has discovered a way to eliminate how people feel about different classes in society. There still may be an upper, middle, and lower class, but people will not feel so separated from the higher classes. The products and quality that rich people have can be attained by anyone because of mass production and the efficient market. Sure, people won’t be able to afford a maid, but their house can look just as clean as one with a maid. The quality of a person’s skin no longer depends on how much you can pay. The products are available to all. The democracy of goods lets anyone achieve the level of luxury they want without too much effort or hardship.
The parable of democracy clearly points toward a egalitarian society. The middle class and poor vastly outnumber the upper class, but their quality of life does not necessarily need to be very different. The fact that mass production makes very high quality things cheaper invites people to raise their self esteem and have more luxurious things. The Hegemony may still attempt to overpower the other classes by having things such as maids and butlers, but the mass population does not have to consent power to the upper classes because of their ability to procure items that even the richest can have.

1. The "parable of the democracy of goods," basically states that with time and feasible decision-making, anyone can achieve a life filled with luxuries equal to that of the most elite economic social classes regardless of current or past economic social status.

2. I think that this idea gives people the illusion of egalitarianism, which in most instances is not the case. Sure, with enough hard work, an individual from a lower economic class could be able to climb the "economic ladder," but an individual who was born into a higher income family would have more resources available to acquire such wealth on his/her own if one chooses. Basically, we are afforded the freedoms to be able to acquire wealth, but not everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire said wealth.

1) Marchand’s “Parable of the Democracy of Goods” is the demonstration by advertisers to consumers of the principle of equal opportunity as means of marketing their products. The tactic is to demonstrate to their consumers how the most affluent members of society, whom most would not consider their equals, use a certain product, thus such a products must be of a higher quality than most. However, this product is affordable to most and so the average consumer should take advantage of this equal opportunity and purchase the product.

2) In my opinion the parable feeds the paradox alluded to by Solomon by promoting the principle of equality and yet fostering envy as a way to entice consumers into purchasing a product.

1) "The Parable of the democracy of goods" is how some advertisements try to give the feeling that if their product is purchased, they will be among the richer, wealthier people, which will in turn make the consumer feel more wealthy from buying the product.

2) I think this encourages hegemonic power structures, since the advertiser is somewhat trying to use the sense that there are better people than the average consumer, and how you will be associated with these fortunate people through some certain product.