I believe one of the skills I learned from working on this project is prototyping. I had already understood the concept of prototyping and the role it plays in new product development, but I did not know how to do it myself. Also, I never grasped the understanding that prototyping is simply a representation of the product – its dimensions, weight, style, color, etc. I always thought that prototyping meant that a complete product had to be created – one with moveable parts, electrical wiring, functioning gears and motors, etc. I remember being overwhelmed with this aspect of the project because clearly a group of students with a limited budget cannot build an electronic device out of scraps. But the key understanding to prototyping came to me when our group asked you about our prototype and you claimed that “we are not prototyping a lamp.” Obviously, everyone already knows what a lamp looks like so a simple representation of a lamp would help the audience understand that the lamp is apart of the whole product – a room in a box. That way when we started building our prototype, our team did not go for this perfect one tenth scale model because it was not the actual individual pieces that mattered. It was the collection of pieces gathered into a box that was a representation of our product.

Another topic that the project helped me learn is the idea of gaining insights to develop products and services that are new, creative, and unique that consumers would never have thought of on their own. It is basically the idea that consumers do not actually know what they want or need. This was an interesting topic to explore for me because I had always thought that the products and services available to the public came from consumers voicing their opinions and concerns. However, as this course has demonstrated, hundreds of products and services come from evaluating insights – consumers’ behavior, psychographics, and emotions – to bring to life a product or service that scratches an itch. For example, in class you talked about how the iPhone has a feature where you can scroll through your voicemail messages and select which ones to listen to instead of the traditional way of listening to all the messages in order. No consumer knew that this was something they wanted. But Apple did extensive research to discover that this is a need or a want that consumers would like to have available. For our project, our team had to conduct email surveys and distribute photo journals so that we could get in the mind of our segment (older single dads). Through this process, we discovered that the bedroom is used for mostly functional purposes and has plain, simple colors and decorations. These were the key insights that our team used to develop a room in a box (The Simple Space). But this is a product that our segment would never be able to describe to marketers because they did not even know that it was useful. These older single dads were content with their current rooms and did not realize that something out there could revolutionize the look and feel of their room.

One of the key emotions I felt throughout this project was frustration. The reason I felt frustrated was because I did not see how each separate piece of the project (the updates) contributed to the whole of the project. Also, each individual part felt like it was a rehash of the one before it, so we were being redundant. However, by the end of the project when we were finally putting it all together, everything seemed to fall into place, and I realized how each step of the way contributed to the whole process. So in the end I would say my emotions were ones of satisfaction, success, and relief. As for my teammates, they were all very good at contributing and working with a collaborative mindset. It was frustrating when certain group members would not show up at group meetings, but they seemed to pull their weight in other areas to make up for it. I would also say that I thoroughly enjoyed our last meeting when we were building the prototype and running through the presentation because we all really got to know each other better. We were all together for six hours so the conversations expanded beyond the usual superficial banter. And I really appreciated the support from the professor. You always encouraged us and made us feel like we were on the right track (even when I felt we were way off). My only recommendation I would say is be consistent with the information regarding the project and encourage the whole way through. That way students do not feel like they are blindly navigating their way through this project. It is the support that got us through the whole ordeal.

The blog post I am critiquing comes from trendwatching.com titled “Eco-Bounty.” The post explores how the rise in environmentalism and green technology has transformed the way consumers purchase their various items and goods. “Eco-Bounty” argues that consumers have turned to waste-reduction, sustainability, and environment friendly purchasing behavior because the rise in pollution is destroying the planet. The blog not only argues that the change in consumer behavior is on the rise throughout the world, but that it is becoming profitable and trendy to go green. But I wonder just how much “bounty” there is in consumers buying less and being more economical. Can the green movement stimulate the economy? Or will the global economy shrink as a whole as a result of less consumption? These are the questions the world will have to find out as we collectively move to a more sustainable world.

One of the problems I see with the economy shifting to an environmentally conscious business world is that growth will not be apart of the process. Since the Industrial Revolution, this country has prided itself on moving forward and making the greatest profit possible through massive increases and growth. That has been the way of the whole 20th century. Companies always complain that if there isn’t growth in a quarter earnings, then that means they are doing poorly. For example, the North American box office has been on fire since the start of the year producing record numbers and contributing to the healthy revitalization of the movie industry. Yet industry leaders always compare the results of this year to other record years (like 2004) and claim that overall attendance is down. What I don’t understand is why people can’t simply be satisfied with the current situation. If the box office returns are up and the studios are reaping a profit, why is that considered poor performance? The reason is because people are never satisfied. Growth is the only solution they see to satiate their avaricious appetites. And because this is true of human nature, I believe the article may be wrong in claiming that going green will bring healthy profits. However, because the green movement is about sustainability and recycling, perhaps the resources, time, and money saved by being environmentally conscious will lead to greater profits. Essentially, the green movement will cut costs while keeping revenues the same leading to an increase in net income. There isn’t a single CEO in the world who doesn’t like a bigger bottom line. For example, in my Principles of Marketing class I took in the fall, an executive from Sam’s Club came and spoke about new efforts to stay competitive and maintain healthy profits. One of the examples he shared was how Sam’s Club changed the shape of the standard gallon of milk jug to a square jug in order to save space on the trucks transporting the goods. He claimed that they were able to fit twice as many square jugs of milk on each truck than before leading to 700,000 miles of travel time saved by the fleet of trucks. Savings like these lead to lower costs that lead to lower prices which means a better customer experience.

One of the other arguments the post makes that I found interesting is that consumers enjoy the “eco-status” of going green. What this means is that consumers’ status changes when they begin to purchase eco-friendly items and goods. I’m skeptical of this assertion because it seems that there are still millions of Americans who don’t care about the green movement and believe their status would be tarnished if they moved to sustainability. This may be only observable in the south where the freedom to be destructive and irresponsible is valued more than the health of the planet. But as it is, amongst my peers, friends, family, and acquaintances, the green movement does not bring the “eco-status” the post argues is the trend popping up in the economy.

I. Introduction

-Thesis: The multitude of variables that affect the success of a film (film criticism, star power, budgets, and award recognition) may not be the right ingredients for the box office smash every studio wants their film to become; instead, the formula lies in producing a film that creates a customer experience both unique to each movie-goer and unifying in a communal sense, as well as new yet still familiar.


II. Body

- Film Criticism
A. The role of film criticism on the movie business and how it affects the financial success of a film. (discuss In Defense of Film Critics article)
B. Although film criticism plays a role in the film industry, many films are impervious to bad reviews because viewers don’t always rely on reviews. (discuss Under the Influence article and Box Office Success article)
C. Site examples of various types of films and weigh the pros and cons of film criticism and how it influences the viewer experience.

- Star Power
A. In the old days, star power drove millions of viewers to the multiplexes. Today, it may not always be beneficial for films to headline leading men and women because the costs aren’t always justified. (discuss Hollywood Stars Blamed for Blockbuster Losses article and The Myth of Star Power article)
B. Discuss if star power improves or weakens box office success and viewer experience.

- Budgets
A. Big budget films aren’t always the biggest earners and don’t guarantee the best viewer experience. (discuss EW article)
B. Discuss how tent-pole and event films have edged out other films causing big budget movies to eat into each other’s profits allowing for smaller films to carve out a niche.
C. However, studios stick to big budgets as a sort of “insurance policy” so as not to lose money. (discuss Box Office Success article)

- Award Recognition
A. Analyze how award recognition may promise a good viewer experience but the box office sometimes underperforms
B. Discuss the latest Oscar season and its influence on the success of nominated films and winners.

- The Real Box Office Winners
A. Discuss the communal and unique experiences movies offer as well as the mix of the familiar and the new
B. Site several examples of movies that don’t fit the paradigm but are successful films and provide the best viewer experience
C. Site example from Walter Murch’s book In the Blink of an Eye
D. Discuss key insights and argue with personal opinions

I. Conclusion

- Although the influences of film criticism, budgets, star power, and award recognition may boost box office numbers, viewers are the ultimate judge of the quality of the films produced by Hollywood. The best viewer experiences lie in the unique individual experience as well as the communal experience while being familiar yet fresh and new.




Let me know if there is anything I can do to strengthen my paper. I think that it has a clear focus but it is difficult to pin-point specific reasons that contribute to the optimal viewer experience.

After viewing the TedTalks with Michael Shermer, I think it is interesting to point out how his skepticism uncovers the truth behind people’s belief in hearing “satan” in Stairway to Heaven, observing crop circles made by aliens, and the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich. Mr. Shermer seems to be a man of science who relies on facts, information, analysis, hypotheses, etc. in order to believe what is rational logic. But I think that he goes beyond his science roots to uncover these myths and hoaxes by pointing out human biases that cause people to believe in the unexplainable. For example, Mr. Shermer discusses how humans look for patterns as visual cues. This is a true bias in human behavior because that is how the brain functions. Humans categorize based on paradigms and other pattern-like linkages in order for the brain to organize thoughts and memories. This pattern seeking bias for categorization is seen in stereotypes. We lump people into similar groups to make it easier on our brains to recall the information. When something does not fit the pattern, our brains label it as different and therefore threatening because it is not like all the rest. The same thing goes for products and services. We as humans look for patterns so that we can easily identify products. I think this is the idea behind the Song airline designing the fusel lodge to look like a woman and her baby. People see the familiar pattern (however subconsciously) and want to fly on the airline. An example that comes to mind is the film Napoleon Dynamite. Netflix for the past couple of years has offered a million dollars to anyone who can design a movie database that will offer films that are similar to your choices; it is a “If you like this movie…you might also like these…” kind of function. But Napoleon Dynamite threw a wrench in the chain. What movies are like it? The film simply does not fit the pattern and so a helpful device like this in improving the customer experience could not easily be created.

Another bias I think that Mr. Shermer was alluding to in his discussion but never explicitly stated it is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a human behavior that confirms things only based on available information and information that supports the pre-existing beliefs or assumptions. Perhaps this can explain why people see the Virgin Mary in the window and cheese sandwich. The individuals who believe this to be a sign are religious people who confirm it to be true because their religious background confirms it. This is why people will sometimes dismiss products as being useless and of poor quality when they have no facts to support the claim. For example, Windows Vista is a product that is seen as being of poor quality because people used confirmation bias that it was a bad product. The Windows Mojave marketing program sought to debunk the myth by allowing customers to use the product under the guise that it was not Windows Vista. After the customers used the product and enjoyed it, they were shown that it was in fact Windows Vista. Understanding human behavior can help marketers to gain customer insights that will improve the products and services made available to the public.

Another point Mr. Shermer makes is when people are informed to look for something, their brain will always find ‘something’ even if there isn’t anything really there. He illustrates this with playing Stairway to Heaven backwards. When he provides the words, people automatically assume that the demonic lyrics are, in fact, present. I think this is a good insight to be cognizant of because it helps with when to disclose information about a product or service and when not to. The moment you provide too much information, people will look for it and find it with confidence that it is indeed fact. But leaving out the information lets consumers enjoy the product or service. It is the old cliché that what they don’t know won’t hurt them.

The documentary The Persuaders was very insightful in the way it explored the various techniques the study of marketing has employed to tap into that ever elusive consumer mind. One of the sections explored the work of Dr. Rapaille who charges thousands of dollars to provide a code that will unlock the secret to success for whatever company that comes to him. His process is simple and straightforward through several focus groups. In the first stage, he makes the people participating in the focus group use their reasoning skills to perform certain activities and have a discussion. Next, reason is abandoned for emotional responses to stories and discussions about various topics. In the last stage, the participants are confused and unsure of Rapaille’s methods leading them to reveal their “reptilian hot buttons” that are the driving motivation for purchasing products. It is at this stage that Rapaille discovers the code that he reveals to the participants so that they can use it in their own marketing endeavors. One example of Rapaille’s code is for Hummer. He claimed the “reptilian hot button” for wanting a Hummer is because it represents dominance. He suggested that Hummer manufacturers tint the windows and heighten the chassis so that the feeling of dominance is highly pronounced. It is through this method that Dr. Rapaille makes his money. But is this method actually useful? When he was first introduced during the interview, he talked about a woman understanding what it is like to be confined in a small space because women give birth and relate to the baby. I’m not sure that Dr. Rapaille is the expert on understanding the female psyche. On the other hand, he is on to something when he points out that people don’t actually know what they want. His method of tapping into the subconscious to discover the true reasons behind consumer behavior is something that has greatly improved marketing programs. But I don’t think that it can be simplified to a single code. There must be many other factors contributing to the behavior making for consumer behavior to be a very complex issue that is elusive and capricious. For example, why is it that people will not eat white margarine? Why will they eat it when it is dyed yellow? It is questions like these that Dr. Rapaille discover and attempt to answer that help better serve the needs of the consumer.

Song, on the other hand, seems to be going for something that simply does not work. I do believe that they are creating a good experience for fliers through the soft palette colors and unique design. Even the tag line “Let yourself fly” taps into the emotional part of the experience making it something that is enjoyable. But I think the problem lies in the identity of the new brand. Nobody knows what the advertisements are about. Even in the documentary, Song’s research showed that very few people had strong brand recognition with Song. Perhaps one thing that is wrong with it is the word associations that go along with the word song. People think of tunes and lyrics when they hear the word song. There is no association with airlines. The word apple, however, does not have any association with computers. But the Apple brand has spent years forging a strong brand equity that has created a consistent and coherent brand recognition that is thriving even today. It just seems that Song has not clearly defined themselves and positioned themselves in the market of airlines. It is almost like people are turned off by the idea of an airline being called Song; like people are turned away from eating white margarine. That would be my only suggestion to do things better: find an identity through a different name that fits the product category of airlines. People would be able to recognize it better and that “reptilian hot button” would not be turned off by the idea.

Mr. Gladwell does a particularly good job of illustrating Kenna’s dilemma in this chapter by providing several examples that show how standard market testing doesn’t always work. For me, the two lessons about consumer behavior that stick out the most are that humans don’t actually know who they are and what they want; the second is that things that are different automatically get this stigma of being wrong or undesirable. I find these two lessons that are discussed in this chapter the most important because they say the most about human behavior not only in the context of customer insights, but also in other behavior seen through the lens of self perceptions, taste, and treatment of others. Therefore, Mr. Gladwell’s chapter is not only tapping into the psyche of buyer behavior, but it is discovering true psychological reasoning and processes that all humans utilize in their daily lives. Like the piece on the Pepsi Challenge pointed out, it was the strong brand associations linked to Coke that made the product the number one cola in the world, not simply the taste.

I have always agreed in my mind with Mr. Gladwell’s theory that people don’t know what they want; at least for myself. I can’t even assemble my own ultimate sandwich at Subway because I don’t actually know what ingredients I like. This ends with me selecting one of the sandwiches from the menu. But I think this applies to your average consumer as well. We as consumers attempt to pick out what we like the most but the margarine example proves that we don’t actually know what that is. Instead of consciously trying to decide, our minds revert to the subconscious and tell us that margarine wrapped in foil and dyed yellow tastes better than the same margarine that is white and not wrapped in foil. And since this behavior is performed subconsciously, the consumers can’t put into words their true thoughts or feelings about a product. That is why we are best expressed through the clothes we wear and the items we collect and buy, like Mr. Gladwell suggests. However, I think consumers’ pride steps in and refuses to recognize this. For example, I can’t tell you how many times I have told myself I know who I am, yet I go off and do something completely out of character. Then I’m left with my mom telling me: “I told you so.” She really does know me better than I know myself. And perhaps marketers, through creative and unique research, come to know consumers better than they know themselves because they tap into that subconscious level. It is that elusive subconscious level that makes the human condition so complex and capricious. We try to better understand it through books, music, films and other art forms but it can never be pinpointed.

The other lesson that Mr. Gladwell points out is that difference is too often associated with being wrong or undesirable. His detailed example about the Aeron chair clearly defines how humans who can’t place something different into a familiar category will dismiss it. It is human nature to categorize and find paradigms in order for us to file memories into our brains. Things that don’t fit the paradigm are overlooked or even worse looked down upon. This is a behavior that is seen in stereotypes and discrimination. People who look different, act different, or dress different are discriminated because it doesn’t fit the norm. This can be taken one step further when people fear difference which leads to racist acts. Because this lesson has many implications beyond simple consumer behavior, it makes for an intriguing and important issue that helps marketers as well as consumers understand human behavior. An example of this that I know of involves Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic for the Chicago Sun Times. In 1967, a new movie called Bonnie and Clyde made its way into theaters across America. The film, once hailed for its graphic violence, was panned by critics calling it amateurish and poorly crafted because of its gritty visual style and jump cuts. But Roger Ebert dubbed the film a masterpiece understanding that its style complemented the violence by showing how realistic and raw violence is in society. Critics and audiences simply saw that it was different and instantly dismissed the film. The film went on to be nominated for ten Academy Awards and is considered one of the best films about violence in America. Roger Ebert, needless to say, was justified in his movie review.

Although I have a certain acumen for business and specifically the marketing realm of knowledge, it is in film that my heart lies. And so my paper topic stems from the world of movies. One of the most interesting questions I have always wondered about the film industry is what makes a good film. What are the key ingredients mixed together and put on celluloid that produces a critical and audience favorite? Is it star power? Awards recognition? Critical praise (or lack there of)? I feel like there are a number of different variables contributing to the success/failure of a film. But is that always the case? It seems that for every blockbuster hit there is a big-budget Hollywood failure. I’m not quite sure there is a specific solution or answer to this question, but I want to dig deeper into the film industry to discover what influences the box office returns of major Hollywood productions. I think that there might be more hidden influences than I imagined. For example, the box office since the start of the new year has been on fire. Each subsequent weekend produces record numbers that are unprecedented for the spring movie season. Just last weekend the Friday the 13th remake debuted with a staggering $42 million dollars, the highest opening weekend gross for a horror film ever. Who could have predicted that? Is it the bad economy leading droves of people to the multiplexes to escape their troubles? And I think that is what makes this topic so interesting. It is very capricious in the way it fluctuates and changes from the various factors. But audiences know what they like to see so maybe all the predictions about the outside influences have no real effect. It is then up to the filmmakers and the marketers to capture a piece of entertainment that audiences will enjoy; it is about their experience. After all, that is what movie-going is all about: the experience.

I’ve always felt that movie-going was always about the experience. No two people will ever agree on all the same movies, so it comes down to each individual. However, when a movie becomes a box office smash and critical darling, there is a certain common factor that unifies the audience. Each individual audience member may be having a different experience, but the audience is connected by the communal experience of sharing the moment together. It is that experience, that fleeting magic in the air that filmmakers and marketers alike wish to tap into so that every film released will lead to box office gold. But since that ephemeral movie magic can’t be captured, packaged, and delivered, it is up to the filmmakers and marketers to create a new customer experience each time with precarious results. That is how my topic relates to customer experiences, in the way marketers and filmmakers must mix the right ingredients to produce an experience that is both unique to the individual and communal amongst all movie-goers.

To further understand my topic, I found an article that discusses three distinct factors that may influence box office receipts. The article is titled How Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets. The article details how film critics, star power, and budgets create the right customer experience so the film is a success. It uses mostly empirical data and formal hypotheses to suggest that these three factors, when combined correctly, can be the right ingredients. The article, however, fails to recognize distinct examples of movies that did not rely on these three factors and turned out to be hits.

I will be honest in stating that I’m not sure of the structure or direction of this topic. It seems a bit broad and too vague right now. Perhaps as I go along in the semester I can better define the parameters and hone in on a narrow idea within this topic that will be easier to interpret and discuss. Although I do find this topic interesting and I think it does apply to customer experiences, I’m just not sure what I’m supposed to get from it or what conclusion I’m supposed to draw from it. But maybe the uncertainty of this topic is right in line with the uncertainty marketers face with each new product or service idea.

Basuroy, Suman, Subimal Chatterjee, and Abraham Ravid. "How Critical Are Critical Reviews?" Journal of Marketing 67 (Oct. 2003): 103-117. Google Scholar. 19 Feb. 2009 .

I found the article about Miss Clairol and L’Oreal to be very interesting in the way each product has come to identify a certain kind of woman. Clairol came out of the cultural zeitgeist of women being submissive to men and how that shaped their self perceptions. These kinds of women were care-givers, moms with kids, and laid back sporting Levi’s. L’Oreal, however, came a little later and captured a whole different cultural milieu. The 70’s milieu was marked by independent, working women who wore gaudy clothing to match their flashy personalities. And as Professor Walls pointed out in class, Clairol and L’Oreal both capitalized on these different kinds of women by capturing the zeitgeist and forming their products around these identities. I think this is an interesting way marketers create successful marketing programs, and I think it is something that is done even today. A prime example this article made me think of is the Mac and the PC.

The Personal Computer or PC was the first generation of computers to come out of the proliferation of home computers. Computers have been around for several decades but it wasn’t until the 80’s that they became available to consumers. And because the PC was the first of its kind, along came with it an identity that has followed it into the 21st century. That identity is one that is marked by the times we lived in. The 80’s were a time of corporate downsizing and bad economic hardships. The people who bought these PC’s were mostly white collar nerds who were focused on industry and economic progress. And so the stereotypical PC user – one who is nerdy and corporate America focused – came to be the image of the PC. This stereotype is one that Apple has long mocked in their Mac vs. PC commercials. Therefore, PC captured a small wrinkle in time and made it apart of the image people think of when they see a PC. Apple’s Mac, on the other hand, captured the feel of a generation through its image and design. Apple released a whole new line of computers in the 90’s that spoke to the emerging Gen Y group who would be the generation to fully experience and understand the digital age. The computers were colorful, hip, and fresh – descriptors of how many Gen Ys’ feel about themselves. And so just like the way PC captured the cultural surroundings with its computer, Apple did the same with its newer, edgier computer. The two different computer makers emerged as strong competitors constantly changing and updating their marketing programs to keep the edge over each other. Their battle for top spot will continue on for the ages just like Clairol and L’Oreal continue to fight it out today.

In this day and age, the competition between PC and Mac has been a little more ferocious than the Clairol vs. L’Oreal competition. A few years back, Mac launched the Mac vs. PC marketing campaign that pointedly exposes the differences between the two computers and how each represents a different cultural milieu. But Clairol and L’Oreal never revealed these differences, instead left them unspoken for women to decide which one they were – a Clairol girl or a L’Oreal girl. This same notion has come to dominate the identity of computer users – a Mac user or a PC user. But although Mac and PC each captured their respective generation of computer users, it seems that consumers have come to pick the computer they like the most, even if they aren’t apart of that generation. For example, there are plenty of older computer users who lived through the invention of the first PC, yet identify as a Mac user because they like the hipness of it. The same goes for people in my generation who stick to PC’s because the rebellious spirit of the Mac turns them away. I can clearly see the similarities between Clairol/L’Oreal and Mac/PC, but there seems to be a difference in the way consumers now days go with what they want, instead of with what they identify with.

Barry Schwartz’s contemplative analysis of the power of choice is both insightful and interesting in the way his theory on official dogma functions beneath the surface, lurking in the shadows of consumers’ minds. It is a truth that is all around us but never spoken of. We have all been in that situation where we took a trip to Wal-Mart for a new tube of toothpaste and discovered an entire aisle of paste, a giant wave of choices to clean our mouths. I certainly agree with Mr. Schwartz and his theory that increased choice comes from the belief that individual freedom makes people live better lives. This can be seen in the way affluent, developed countries like the United States have fought for freedom and have choice as opposed to third-world, developing countries that have very little individual freedom and consequently little choice. But I think the real problem is rooted not in the increase of choice, but in the human nature of wanting the thing that you don’t have. It is a ‘grass is always greener on the other side’ kind of cliché that always leaves consumers with a strong sense of remorse.

Mr. Schwartz goes on to describe some negative consequences or effects of the paradox of choice. He first claims that the freedom of choice produces paralysis. Consumers become so overwhelmed with choices that they simply can’t decide on a single choice. Although I can see how this manifests itself in everyday shopping, I think that another effect of this paralysis could be that consumers then buy too much. Too often people can’t come to a decision and so they select several of their top favorites to calm their indecisiveness. This is seen in variety packs, combos, and a wide assortment of packaged deals that include several different items. But I think that this only applies to low-level involvement purchases. Large ticket items like automobiles, TV’s, and furniture are typically associated with only one significant purchase.

The second affect Mr. Schwartz describes of the paradox of choice is the ‘buyer’s remorse’ or regret they experience after making a decision because there is always the other product that could have been better. Schwartz claims if we were to reduce the amount of choice, people would be more satisfied with their decisions. But maybe it isn’t the level of choice that needs to be adjusted. Perhaps the real problem lies in human nature to always want the thing that they don’t have. I feel that this might be the true reason because the materials of this world never truly satisfy a human being. Business men are always trying to earn more money, celebrities are always buying new cars and yachts, and lower and middle class citizens are always trying to move up the socio-economic ladder. It seems like an endless effort to have more. And maybe that is what Mr. Schwartz is tapping into – our human nature. I’m not sure what the solution to a problem like this is. I can easily say that individuals should simply decide in their mind enough is enough and be satisfied, but that is a simplistic solution. So maybe Mr. Schwartz is correct in finding a tangible culprit like choice and resolving to reduce it.

I recall a time when the paradox of choice took its hold on me forcing me to settle for a pair of shoes that met only my minimal standards. It was back over the Christmas break, and I was in desperate need of a new pair of shoes; my old ones were on their death bed. I decided to shop around a bit to find the nicest style at the lowest price because I am a fairly frugal individual. The first store I visited I discovered a pair of shoes that I enjoyed for a decent price. But I decided to wait because I figured I could find another pair just like them for a cheaper price. A half a dozen stores and my entire Saturday later, I was left with the choice between fifteen different pairs all within the same price range. The experience left me paralyzed, much like Mr. Schwartz describes. I actually settled on the very first pair I discovered, but of course the regret settled in after I made the purchase. Perhaps if I had purchased the very first pair because I had no other choice I would not have wasted my Saturday and gotten into a bad mood. Oh, the life of a consumer.

Blog 1: Generation Y

After reading the various articles and listening to the podcast, I was reminded of a time in my youth when I started to think about the things that would shape my generation. I was seven years old in second grade anxiously waiting to go to computer class. I loved this class because all we did for forty-five minutes was play computer games. I recall wondering what the point of all this was. Why were we learning to use these devices called computers? I instantly dismissed the device as a pointless machine, useless to all those who played with them. Obviously, I could not have been more wrong. I preface with this story to answer these questions with two responses. My first answer is that I strongly believe that my generation is indeed being captured accurately by tapping into our diverse and individualistic behaviors. And my second answer to these questions is that I as an individual am an Omega, an absurd anomaly unable to be captured by the groupings of marketers.

I think there is a lot of truth in what is said in the articles and the podcast. The millions of young people apart of Generation Y have been raised in a society rapidly growing through technological advances and progress. That has made us tech savvy, media experts who demand speed and efficiency above all else. But I think the one thing that really sets us apart from the other generations that the readings captured is our inherent thirst for individuality and diversity. We as a generation do not ascribe to one large homogenous group who all have the same interests, likes, and dislikes. We seek out that which is unique and an expression of our individuality. We are, essentially, not mainstream. An example of the generational differences between Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers can be seen in television. Baby Boomers witnessed the birth of television back when The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy were the hit shows to watch. Those programs captured nearly half of all American viewers with each weekly episode accounting for nearly one hundred million viewers. The homogeneity of this viewing experience continued well into the 1980’s and some parts of the 1990’s. But the programming tastes of viewers today have changed mostly due to the younger generation (Gen Y). Programming has diversified so much that hit shows are popping up on cable channels instead of major networks such as FX (Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me), TNT (The Closer, Saving Grace), HBO (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under), and Showtime (Weeds, The Tutors). Moreover, the Emmy winner for Best Drama Series this past year went to Madmen, a series on AMC, not a major network. As a result, the big four networks are scrambling to find ways to attract viewers with crowd-pleasing blockbusters. But that is precisely what our generation does not want: bland, homogenous programs.

Although I think marketers are catching on to my generation’s edgier, more diverse tastes, I feel like I am a lone straggler that does not fit into the social networking hipsters of today. I will concede that I pride myself in being an individual, and consequently identify with being typical of seeing myself as unique and diverse. However, I am not tech savvy nor do I care for social networking. I must be a true product of my parents because they have always been technologically illiterate. I do not own an iPod, I have no facebook (Gasp!), no myspace, no blog (except this required one), and I don’t spend all my time wasting away on the computer. Instead, I spend my time delving into all that is movies- reading reviews, watching movies, buying movie memorabilia. I fit into the movie nerd niche, but I certainly do not identify with the essence of this generation.

Marketers should tailor their efforts to the characteristics of this generation if they want to succeed. This generation that is defined by media, technology, and speed is one that demands diversity and individuality because we have a more realistic view of the world and its complexities. I, on the other hand, may have a different view because I don’t easily fit into the stereotype of this generation. Or perhaps I should have been more precocious in observing the power and influence of computers back in those elementary school days. Either way, I’m still an individual apart of this young generation.