If you are for the Smart car, then you are against the McMansion

Posted on by

Scott Goodson, the founder of an ad agency, argues that the new trend in advertising is selling a movement:

When the Smart car wanted to sell you a new model earlier this year, instead of talking about the usual advertising claims, like how great the car drives and how fuel efficient it is, Smart USA took a radically different approach. It came out with an idea of being against certain things. It asked you, the consumer, to think about what you were against in life, like excess stuff you buy but don’t need, McMansions with four car garages and of course gas guzzlers.

This is an unusual thing for a car company to do. It was not simply pushing polished cars in ads, it was saying something controversial. It was taking a stand against something. And it went beyond advertisements and set up a Facebook page. Why would advertising do this, why would the brand have this message?

Well, the Smart car, with the help of my agency StrawberryFrog in New York, was trying to spark a national movement against dumb mindless over-consumption. The thinking was: “Hey, if we could get millions of people excited about joining the fight against waste and dumb consumerism, it’s a great way to get them excited about the Smart car.”

This is part of a larger trend in advertising. To get people excited about a brand in this new social-media-Facebook-crazy world, you need to dump the old advertising playbook and spark a movement that people can get involved with.

Goodson suggests that it remains to be seen how consumers will respond. However, these sorts of ads are needed because “traditional ads” no longer work and advertisers need ways to reach consumers.

I’ve seen some ads like this recently. Such ads still target the identity of individual consumers but with a twist. First, they suggest that there are morally good and wrong choices to be made. The Smart car ad is suggesting that people in four-car McMansions are on the wrong side while virtuous Smart car owners are on another side. Second, they tie individual identity to a collective of like-minded consumers. While a cynic might suggest that such consumers are simply participating in the capitalistic movement, Smart car owners are told that their purchase makes them part of something bigger. If you put these two ideas together, consumers can still follow their individual tastes (however influenced they are by outside forces) but feel like they are participating in virtuous action with others.

Regarding the Smart car ads: what would happen if Toyota started advertising the Fit with the Smart car as its enemy/opposite movement? It seems rather easy to pick on McMansions and excessive consumption but what if it was a similar product?

In the long run, does this cheapen more traditional social movements that are looking to right social wrongs?

I wonder if advertisers would say these these movement-based ads are more effective with younger consumers, particularly emerging adults who might be yearning to be part of larger collectives.

The McMansion for dogs in the sculpture park

Posted on by

A sculpture park in St. Louis has a new exhibit for dogs that includes a McMansion:

This summer, Laumeier Sculpture Park hosts “Dog Days of Summer,” an exhibit that allows visitors to ponder the dog/human relationship while giving their pets a chance to romp free across the park grounds…

The exhibit’s centerpiece, “Not Without My Dog,” is an interactive dog trail installed outdoors. Designed by Finnish artist Tea Makipaa, the art piece has six stations dogs can examine as they wind their way along the park’s nature trail.

“It’s a place where dogs can be themselves and we can better understand how they perceive the world,” Venso said.

One of the interactive stations, called “Dogs of USA,” has several contemporary versions of doghouses. Venso said one burned-out house represents Detroit. Another is built in cookie-cutter “McMansion” style. A third is an eight-story brick tenement doghouse.

What an interesting collection of “contemporary” doghouses: a burned-out house, a McMansion, and a tenement. Why these three and what is the message behind them? Perhaps they simply represent interesting settings that allow the sculptor to show some creativity. (Who will be the first to take a picture of a dog going to the bathroom on the McMansion in the park and post it gleefully online?)

I’m going to have to check the website of the sculpture park to see if they include any pictures of these three doghouses after the exhibit opens June 25.

Meritocracy vs. structures illustrated by a British rapper who chose LSE over Cambridge

Posted on by

I have seen a number of stories in recent days about a 17 year old British rapper from a disadvantaged area, Franklyn Addo, who had a choice to study at five British universities, including Cambridge. In The Guardian, Addo explains why he chose to study sociology at the London School of Economics (LSE):

The real reasons that lead me to my decision – one I did not take lightly – are much more significant than the lack of a “music scene”. Having meticulously assessed the content of the courses offered at LSE and Cambridge, I decided I would be more suited to the course in London. Crucially, studying at LSE also makes more financial sense, as I would not have to pay for accommodation.

Obtaining an offer from Oxbridge is such a rarity, especially for people like me who come from a relatively deprived area. This causes some to believe that the interview process is bound to be extremely scary. Contrary to this, I found the interview was not frightening; the environment was pleasant and the interviewers welcoming. I enjoyed having a formal conversation about concepts within sociology, a field I am passionate about. After being given time to digest a case study, two interviewers quizzed me about the information I was given and assessed my ability to make links between sociological, psychological and political concepts. If you are knowledgeable about the subject you’re applying for, the interview process is likely to be enjoyable, although indubitably challenging.

Indeed, from my personal experience, Cambridge appears to be meritocratic and non-discriminatory, although the demographics of current undergraduate students may suggest differently. Some of my peers view Oxbridge as a desirable goal to which some aspire, but others see it as an elitist institution; perhaps due to the false belief that it is impossible for them to receive offers to study there. People from deprived areas must assess their way of thinking and begin to understand that society is becoming increasingly meritocratic and that anything is possible with hard work.

Furthermore, schools and colleges should encourage people who have the academic ability to apply and help them with the process – as my sociology teacher at Woodhouse College in Barnet, Nazia Rahim, did with me. She provided me with extracurricular help, a mock interview for Cambridge and was pivotal in developing my understanding that I can achieve what I set my mind to. Schools and authority figures should be active in empowering the local community to aim high from a young age and encourage young people to take part in extracurricular activities so they are attractive applicants to whichever university they decide upon, or whatever career they decide to pursue.

What interests me in this account is how he describes reactions to Oxbridge (referring to Cambridge and Oxford): are they elitist or meritocratic? Addo seems to subscribe to the meritocratic argument, suggesting “society is becoming increasingly meritocratic and that anything is possible with hard work.” But would this be the viewpoint of many sociologists and those who study sociology? On the whole, sociologists would talk about the difficulties of social mobility and how class structures, both in wealth and cultural disparities, influence life chances. But here Addo describes his chances as the result of “hard work” and the efforts of his sociology teacher.

If sociologists were asked about their own successes and not about life chances in the abstract, would they suggest it was because of their own hard work and efforts (the meritocratic side) or because they had structural advantages (the elitist side)? When talking with students or their kids, can sociologists teach about broader structures but then suggest to individuals kids that their life chances are highly determined by their own efforts? Perhaps this is taking the agency vs. structure debate to a personal level to ask whether individuals attribute their successes or maybe just their failures to structures.

“Gated communities for tourists” in Turkey

Posted on by

Gated communities are a common feature of American life but I was intrigued by comments from a sociology about “gated communities for tourists” in Turkey:

While economic consequences of holiday resorts are under discussion, some also underline the sociological outcomes. According to sociologist Özgür Sar?, who specializes in tourism sociology, many Turkish cities are closed to touristic activities.

“I did my field study in Konya, where many tourists come for Mevlana (the Muslim poet and Sufi mystic),” Sar? told the Daily News. “All tourist attractions are located around his tomb; there is nothing else for tourists in other parts of the city. This is the same in all cities of Turkey, even in Istanbul. The tourist route in Istanbul doesn’t go beyond Sultanahmet-Eminönü-Taksim route. So these areas also become gated environments, where there is no interaction with the locals.”

Sar? said most Turkish municipalities avoid bringing tourists and the local public together; and therefore keep touristic activities in one part of the city.

“Turkey has a conservative society and tourism means breaking the conservatism,” Sar? said. “Municipalities are concerned because they don’t want any unwanted incidents. On the other hand, they have to obey the instructions of the Tourism Ministry, so they prefer keeping touristic locations on one side,” Sar? said.

This highlights a larger issue: just how much should tourists interact with locals? It sounds like the lines are drawn more clearly in Turkey than in some other places and many tourists are supposed to “experience” the country within the confines of resorts. Of course, sociologists would note that these resorts offer only a very limited and likely consumerist view of whatever country is outside the resort. I imagine that tourists in these Turkish resorts still interact with at least a few Turkish residents who are performing service jobs within the resort. But if this is the extent of the interaction, it is hard to suggest one has truly experienced Turkey. And then we could ask how different the “gated” resort in Turkey is from the same kind of resort in Cancun and from all sorts of other beach locations.

Underlying a lot of the discussion in this article is that Turkey could grow the tourism industry and bring more money into the country. “Gated” resorts may bring in some money but it could be spread around more, possibly more to average citizens and less to resort corporations, if tourists visited more sites around the country.

Data to assess Ray Lewis’ claim that crime would increase if the NFL doesn’t play

Posted on by

A while back, I called for data to assess Ray Lewis’ claim that crime would rise if the NFL doesn’t have games. A group of journalists decided to use data to examine Lewis’ argument and even made at least one of the comparisons I suggested might be helpful:

The AJC accepted Lewis’ invitation to do that research, contacted the Northeastern’s Sport in Society center and was told that “there is very little evidence supporting Lewis’ claim that crime will increase the longer the work stoppage lasts.”…

The Sun looked at crime in Baltimore the four weeks before the season started and the first four weeks of the season. There was the same number of crimes. The Sun also examined the crime rate there at the end of the Ravens’ season and what happened afterward. What did it find? There was less crime after the season ended in early January.

The Sun stressed several times that its findings were unscientific…

The AJC then went to look at increases in crime during bye weeks, assuming that the no football/higher crime equation would fit a much shorter time frame. No real evidence was presented that would lead in one direction or another.

One criminologist we interviewed had a different take. Northeastern University professor James A. Fox heard Lewis’ comments and did a study. He looked at key FBI data from the last three years available, 2006 through 2008, focusing on the week before the Super Bowl because there were no games that week and there was intense interest in football around that time of the year. Fox, who was referred to us by the FBI, found no increase in crime the week there was no football.

This isn’t comprehensive data – but it’s a start. Of course, such studies need to control for a lot of possible factors that could affect crime levels and fairly large samples across multiple cities are needed.

I still don’t quite understand why the media’s response to Lewis’ claim with data has been either slow or not disseminated widely, particularly Lewi’s argument was widely aired and discussed.

Os Guinness on how evangelicals view and use sociology

Posted on by

Os Guinness tries to explain how evangelicals view and use sociology:

CP: How are we as Christians failing to live the Way of Jesus?

Guinness: Sadly, when we look at many movements within evangelicalism today, the world and the spirit of the age are dominant, rather than the Word and Spirit.

I feel this very deeply as one trained in the social sciences. When I wrote “The Gravedigger File” nearly thirty years ago, very few evangelicals knew much about sociology. It was considered a “dangerous” field, along with psychology. Now it is cited almost universally, especially in the constant quoting of the latest statistics. I have heard mega-church sermons in which “Gallup or Barna says” far out-stripped “God or the Bible says.

But whereas sociology was once unused, it is now used uncritically. One of the key places where sociology should be used is in analyzing “the world” of our times, so that we can be more discerning. To resist the dangers of the world you have to recognize the distortions and seductions of the world. I have revised and updated my book under a new title, “The Last Christian on Earth”, but understanding the world through cultural criticism, as this parable encourages, is still unfashionable. Rather than use sociology that way, most pastors use it in a way that leads to adapting to the world, and they are encouraged to do so by half-baked versions of “seeker-sensitive” mission, and so on.

Guinness suggests sociology is used by evangelicals in several ways:

1. As a source of data. Several commentators have suggested in recent years that this data is often used in an alarmist way and to rally people to a particular cause or way of thinking. See an example here.

2. It is used by religious leaders who are trying to adapt or connect to culture rather than critique or understand culture.

From what Guinness is saying, it sounds like evangelicals are taking what they want from sociology rather than engaging with some of the bigger ideas and methods of the discipline. This seems to fit with the pragmatic culture of evangelicalism that is always looking for ways to reach the broader culture without thinking everything through.

I would also argue with the suggestion that sociology is no longer viewed as “dangerous” by many evangelicals. They may hear sociological snippets at church but I think there is still a decent amount of resistance and more so than psychology.

Revisiting “Privatopia”

Posted on by

One of the key texts in the last 20 or so years regarding gated communities and homeowners associations was Privatopia, published in 1994. With a recent book, Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, the same author updates his thoughts and talks about the financial viability of homeowner’s associations:

A: The (housing) boom is clearly over, and right now few of these associations are being created. The problem shifts to sustaining the ones we have. What was sustaining them was an endless rise in housing prices. People could always sell at a profit, and the association would get its money. Now we have foreclosures and people not paying their assessments for six months or a year, and associations aren’t getting their assessments. The banks in foreclosures don’t want to pay overdue assessments…

It’s presumed that monthly assessments will cover operating expenses, which can include things like trash collection, pool maintenance, even resurfacing the streets. But studies that have been done show they probably don’t have enough money in reserve. At least a third of them … don’t have half of what they should have. After the housing collapse and the foreclosures, it’s probably more like half don’t have enough. Many of them are having to go to the bank and get a loan, but if you have a high delinquency rate, you can’t get a loan…

Q: Do you have any numbers on how many such associations are in dire financial straits?

A: No, and that’s a problem. I’m starting a six-month sabbatical now to work on exactly that. Everything I get is anecdotal, and I want to get a quantitative handle on how bad the problem is.

If many local governments are having budget problems, it is a surprise that many homeowners associations are facing similar troubles? I would imagine that the locations with more associations in financial trouble would mirror locations with more foreclosures and the most depressed housing prices. I wonder how many people within these associations are aware of these troubles. Actually, I wonder how many residents pay much attention at all to what their associations are doing.

Ultimately, perhaps this will all end up in the courts as associations and lenders who own foreclosures battle over assessments.

Great Quotes in Homeownership #2: Herbert Hoover on the value of owning a home in 1931

Posted on by

Herbert Hoover is not a well-regarded President. But he did have a lot to say about home ownership even as the country was going through the Great Depression. Here are some of Hoover’s thoughts from 1931:

“Next to food and clothing, the housing of a nation is its most vital problem. . . . The sentiment for home ownership is embedded in the American heart [of] millions of people who dwell in tenements, apartments and rented rows of solid brick. . . . This aspiration penetrates the heart of our national wellbeing. It makes for happier married life. It makes for better children. It makes for courage to meet the battle of life. . . . There is a wide distinction between homes and mere housing. Those immortal ballads, ‘Home, Sweet Home,’ ‘My Old Kentucky Home’ and ‘The Little Grey Home in the West’ were not written about tenements or apartments. . . . They were written about an individual abode, alive with tender associations of childhood, the family life at the fireside, the free out-of-doors, the independence, the security and the pride in possession of the family’s own home. . . . Many of our people must live under other conditions. But they never sing songs about a pile of rent receipts. . . .”

Over these warm words and some 1,900 others like them President Hoover had worked with a full heart for two months. One evening last week he took them all, in the form of a keynote address, to Constitution Hall and there, in a voice brimming with emotion, delivered them to the assembled delegates of the President’s Conference on Home Building & Home Ownership. At this great gathering President Hoover again demonstrated his ability and leadership in an unofficial activity outside the constitutional realm of the Presidency.

The conference’s major purpose, President Hoover said, was “to stimulate industrial action,” not “to set up government in the building of homes.” To promote home owning the President urged a better system of home financing, thus keying his program in with his proposed Home Loan Discount system (TIME, Nov. 23).

Of course, Hoover gets some of the blame for not being able to move the country out of a position where it was difficult for many Americans to imagine homeownership, let alone a steady job. But these and other quotes from Hoover suggest he was a President who was committed to helping average Americans move from a monthly rent to a mortgage even in dark economic times. He suggested homeownership would lead to better social outcomes plus lead to feelings of nostalgia, “independence,” “security,” and “pride.”

This is also a reminder that the American value of homeownership was not just a post-World War II phenomenon. The rate of suburbanization was impressive in the post-war period but there had been a wave of suburbanization in the more prosperous 1920s that was interrupted by the Great Depression. I have occasionally found it interesting to think about how suburban growth patterns would have been different without the Great Depression and World War II. Several things might have happened earlier, like the building of interstates or the mass building of suburban communities (exemplified by the Levittowns). Perhaps the whole process might have simply taken longer, giving citizens and politicians more time to react and adjust.

I also wonder how Hoover’s goals of homeownership are viewed by today’s scholars who look back at this period: did these sentiments directly contribute to prolonging the Great Depression? How many of Hoover’s ideas ended up getting implemented in some form by subsequent leaders?

Sociologist who studies sports riots tries to explain Vancouver riots

Posted on by

On Thursday, I threw out a few ideas about the riots in Vancouver after the Canuck’s Game 7 loss. A sociologist who has studied over 200 sports riots suggests what happened in Vancouver was quite unusual as it followed a loss rather than a win:

In fact it is so unusual that Jerry Lewis, the author of Sports Fan Violence in North America, told CBC News that what we saw Wednesday night “might be called the Vancouver effect.”

An emeritus professor of sociology at Kent State University in Ohio, Lewis has looked closely at over 200 sports riots in the U.S. and none of them followed a loss by the home team.

That little quirk aside, however, Vancouver’s night of rampage does fit relatively well with the overall pattern of sports riots in North America. From his research, Lewis has identified five common conditions:

  • A natural urban gathering place.
  • The availability of a ‘cadre’ of young, white males.
  • Championship stakes.
  • Deep in the series.
  • A close, exciting game.

It appears that the riots in Vancouver followed some of the patterns of sports riots (the five cited above) except for the fact that they came after a loss. Lewis and another academic go on to suggest that the rioting in Vancouver “was simply an expression of frustration.” Another academic also suggests that North Americans tend to pout after sports losses while European crowds are more liable to cause trouble because they see it as an attack on their identity.

If all of this is true, then the real question to ask is why this happened in Vancouver (and also happened in 1994)? Lots of cities go through big sports losses and there are a lot of frustrated sports fans every year as only one team can win a championship in each major sports. What leads to a different reaction in Vancouver? This sounds like it could be a very interesting case study.

Dioramas of suburbs and McMansions

Posted on by

The New York Times has a story about photographers who build model homes and suburban scenes in order to photograph them:

Yet “Otherworldly: Optical Delusions and Small Realities,” at the Museum of Arts and Design, circles back to the two-dimensional image in ways that feel very sophisticated. A good number of the show’s more than 40 artists build model homes, cities and landscapes mainly to photograph them…

James Casebere, meanwhile, shows his photographs but not the architectural models of suburban housing developments on which they are based. By controlling the lighting and printing his images on a large scale, he makes sprawl seem even more aggressive and insidious. In “Landscape With Houses (Dutchess County, N.Y.) #8” tightly spaced McMansions tower over a quaint white-clapboard farmhouse.

Mr. Casebere is something of an anomaly in this show because he is so focused on the present. Other examples of model architecture tend to indulge nostalgia, along the lines of Michael Paul Smith’s bland 1950s strip mall and Alan Wolfson’s gritty little slice of 1970s Canal Street in New York…

The trip through all of these microcosms can be tedious: too many shoeboxes, not enough ideas. One exception is a video by Junebum Park, who uses his hands and a rooftop camera to turn an ordinary parking lot into a kind of moving diorama. A simple trick of perspective is all it takes to make him the master of Matchbox cars and ant-size pedestrians.

The article ends by suggesting that too many of the dioramas are similar. What would happen if an artist presented suburban homes in a positive light rather than portraying sprawl as “aggressive and insidious” – would this be different enough or unacceptable?

I am intrigued by the idea that a “bland” 1950s strip mall induces nostalgia. What exactly does this look like?