As with Voting, in Marketing, Real People Don’t Count Anymore

/in /by

For some time, it has become increasingly clear that our politicians can pursue policies that benefit just their rich donors–austerity, killing Medicare, bailing out banksters at the expense of homeowners–while ignoring their purported constituents.

So I guess it comes as no surprise that advertisers are beginning to adopt the same approach.

The top 10 percent of American households, [AdAge] adds, now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, and a disproportionate share of that spending comes from the top 10’s upper reaches.

“Simply put,” sums up Ad Age’s David Hirschman, “a small plutocracy of wealthy elites drives a larger and larger share of total consumer spending and has outsize purchasing influence — particularly in categories such as technology, financial services, travel, automotive, apparel, and personal care.”

[snip]

“As the very rich become even richer,” as Ad Age observes, “they amass greater purchasing power, creating an increasingly concentrated market for luxury goods and services as well as consumer goods overall.”

In the future, if current trends continue, no one else but the rich will essentially matter — to Madison Avenue.

“More than ever before,” the new Ad Age paper bluntly sums up, “the wealthiest households will be the households with significant disposable income to spend.”

Why market to the mere middle class (which is busy, in any case, falling out of the middle class) when marketing to the super rich is so much more lucrative?

If advertisers really do start blowing off the middle class, it might have an interesting mixed result. On one hand, there may be a greater gap between what people see on TV commercials and shows, driving insecurity about not matching the lifestyles you see on TV (then again, maybe advertisers will just stop advertising on TV).

But if the middle class isn’t the target of a barrage of advertising, it may lead to a less materialist lifestyle, leaving people to invest in their communities rather than their toys.

Who knows? One thing is clear: increasing inequality is totally defining our society. And it’s not entirely clear how the newly redefined society is going to end up.

  1. MadDog says:

    Great news! No more commercials for us peons!

    Who would’ve thought that having no money to spend had any positive aspect?

    I can hear it now – Shorter rich folks: – “If only we were poor!”

    • BoxTurtle says:

      That was my first reaction as well. I left commerical radio long ago, when their morning shows, commercials, and other “special” features enabled me to do my entire commute without ever hearing a lick of music.

      Now, pandora is my friend.

      Boxturtle (An hour plus commute each way and NEVER a commerical)

      • MadDog says:

        Radio?

        They still have radio?

        Must be more than a dozen years since I’ve listened to radio. *g*

        • BoxTurtle says:

          I ASSUME they still broadcast radio over the air, my car CD player does have a tuner. The stepson says that the radio stations I used to listen to still broadcast OldFart music (A fine way to refer to the Moody Blues *hrrumph*) so I assume they’re still making money.

          But those stations could vanish tomorrow and I wouldn’t know. It used to be the only time the radio was off was when I was watching TV or sleeping.

          Boxturtle (The networks better hope that Netflix doesn’t morph into pandora TV)

  2. PeasantParty says:

    How quaint! LOL! I sure hope they spend enough to keep their country safe and keep the government up and running. Oh yeah, they must spend greatly to keep Wall Street happy. Afterall, Wall Street IS THE GOVERNMENT!

  3. allan says:

    And it’s not entirely clear how the newly redefined society is going to end up.

    See Brazil. Either the country or the movie.

  4. Linnaeus says:

    Who knows? One thing is clear: increasing inequality is totally defining our society. And it’s not entirely clear how the newly redefined society is going to end up.

    See “Revolution, French”.

  5. fatster says:

    Well, heck, they only have to aim their ads to 1% of the world’s households:

    One percent holds 39 percent of global wealth

    “Around one percent of households have 39 percent of the globe’s wealth according to a study published Tuesday, pointing to increased inequalities in the wake of the global downturn.”

    LINK.

    • PeasantParty says:

      I’m thinking it is hilarious that the corps have actually PRICED themselves out of the market. Well, the market they used to have before the government was usurped by two other parties. The Wall Street Party and the MIC Party.

  7. marksb says:

    Even the advertising approach has changed over the last couple of years. The Lexus/Beemer/Benz ads used to show how wonderfully lux the ride was and how you too can drive one, credit is easy. Now it’s here’s the car, it’s what you’ve earned, it’s the best, and we all know you’ve got the money.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Join FDL. We may not be able to recover their ill-gotten gains, but at least they won’t sleep as soundly.

      Boxturtle (I LOVED Teddy’s quote)

  9. JohnLopresti says:

    I notice an extraordinary fraction of home purchase contracts are in the **all cash** category. Working to develop assets is longterm in scope; in cashflow pinched times like the post mortgage securities crunch now waning, liquid fungibles provide a way to climb the status ladder yet farther. I admit to liking the innate capitalistic encouragement toward sagacious economic management, evident in the all-cash transactions mentioned.

    As for ubiquity of advertisements, old FDL has developed quite a roster, fdL being newMedia, forward-looking, and all that; ?who needs commercial television if fDL posts are more timely and insightful, compared to commercialized television?

    Re voting*s morphing to a new post Citizens United realm of donor identification firewalling, consider that new paper by Ciara Torres-Spellicy,Esq.+ et al. [321 KB] regarding experience hiding donor names in England. Evidently, the UK public foresaw the sort of ploys the US is experiencing post CU, with the 501c4 construct which hides donor identities in political campaigns; in y2k the UK passed a law to force revelation of donor identity, and revised that law in 2006, for public companies who sought to donate from corporate treasury to politicians: the result, donors who seek anonymity simply redirect their illicit funds thru privately held companies. No muss, no fuss.

    —-

    Stetson U Coll of Law.

      • pdaly says:

        Good question. I wonder whether corporate sponsors would, in exchange for covering tuition, have free reign to deck you out in the latest bling to advertise their “wears”?

  11. cregan says:

    I think marketing to whoever spends the money makes a lot of sense, but passing laws to the tune of only a small percentage is not good.

    Some would argue that passing HCR was such an example. Very few benefitted from that turkey.

  12. Deep Harm says:

    The top 10 percent of American households, [AdAge] adds, now account for nearly half of all consumer spending…

    Nearly half of what???? How much, overall, is being spent? The answer to that question is critical in terms of the viability of the U.S. economy.

    Another question: Where are they spending that money? Are they spending it in the U.S., where it will create at least some jobs? Or, are they spending a lot of it overseas, for yachts, real estate, fashion, art and antiques in other countries–a longstanding pattern of buying?

    Of course, everyone is buying overseas products, mostly made in China. But, the richest Americans tend to make the purchases directly overseas, meaning the money never gets spent in the U.S., even to pay retail store staff. A large amount of U.S. dollars are sent overseas by recent immigrations, to support families in their countries of origin. As a result, fewer and fewer dollars are being spent in the U.S. and circulate here, forcing Americans to compete for portions of a shrinking pile of money. The only way to restore the economy is to focus on keeping U.S. dollars at home and repatriating those that have left.

  13. prostratedragon says:

    Major league sports have been up-skewing their broadcast coverage of the marquee events for several years now, e.g. MN football and most NBA All-Star festivities and playoff games up to the final round moving to pay cable, with the Super Bowl a pretty good bet to follow at the next round of contracts.

    The next phase in a long project of defining virtuous, true Americans through their willingness and ability to buy what they are cowed into by the sellers participation in the marketplace.