Media plays a major roll in our political economy. Our daily decisions are sometimes based from the influences of media. You wake up; brush your teeth with toothpaste you most likely bought because of excessive exposure to commercials or advertisements for that toothpaste brand. That’s only the beginning; the rest of your day consists of constant exposure to media. Even more so today then ever are we faced with media persuasion, one reason being smart phones. As adults we are able to analyze what we are being fed via media. For the most part, we are knowledgeable enough to know where and what to spend our money on, but sometimes knowledge isn’t even enough. Now imagine how much easier it is for media to influence children. They love a certain television show or movie, which results in their parents spending money to buy them a product(s) to do with that show or movie. Media has no discrimination against age, which is something I consider a politically economic issue.
While reading Meehan’s article, “Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!”: The Political Economy of a Commercial Intertext, I could not help but think of Disney’s Frozen. Over this past year the amount of Frozen paraphernalia I have seen is countless. Just as the article explained the Bateman craze, batman clothing, accessories, toys, etc.; Frozen has taken the same route. Meehan goes on to discuss the audience WCI was targeting. Frozen too is focused towards a certain audience. The film is obviously for children but the movie is also enjoyable for adults as well, which is ideal for Disney because that means more profit. Another similarity are the soundtracks. Batman’s soundtrack was produced by WCI’s record label, as was Frozen’s soundtrack, produced by Disney’s record label. The money making strategies seem endless. Disney even came out with a refurbished sing-a-long version of the movie with lyrics of the songs being sung displayed on the screen.
Meehan’s stated, “Profit, not culture, drives show business: no business means no show” (Meehan 48). Media giants seem to follow a very similar pattern. They try to control any aspect of production possible. These companies can and will sell us anything for profit. It is understandable that the companies, take Disney for example, must make a profit off of their films, but only to a certain extent. Children who love a Disney production are going to want every possible item to do with it. Parents are going to go out and buy that item for their child. If Disney keeps on putting out updated versions and new items people are going to keep spending money. Powerhouse media companies take it way overboard, they just keep going and going. Smaller companies will never stand a chance in this economy. Major media companies only care about money, which results in power. They have strategies for making the most money possible regardless of age.
Meehan, Ellen R. Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!”:The Political Economy of a Commercial Intertext. 48-62. PDF.
“Frozen (2013 Film).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
Sydney Megan Jow says
There were a lot of good points made in this post, namely the emphasis on complete saturation in today’s media. When it comes down to it, media IS a business. There is no way around it; just like any other business system, the objective is to make profit. Although the growing power of the media giants is something dangerous, the majority of the population is well aware of this and continues to readily consume the products and information handed to us.
A prime example made in the original post: Smartphones. We have been taught to believe that the smartphone is imperative for any businessman, entrepreneur, and college/high school kid to stay relevant and informed. But do you really think that the giant corporations who produce these devices actually believe that we, as a whole, as a society, are that dumb? When you think about it honestly, unimpaired by the judgment of others, it is quite clear that these smartphones, excessive applications, and constant connection to social media are the furthest thing from vital to our lives. We have these things because we want them; and media/telecommunication giants know that if there is one thing humans are good at, it’s convincing ourselves that our wants are our needs. So no, we are not dumb; we are just hungry.
As far as the topic of pushing onto consumers every possible piece of paraphernalia, advert, comic book, special edition DVD box set, toys, blankets, hats, anything and everything you can think of…Saturating our every move with something we find familiar, this is just another way of the media directing our attention onto something they can make money off of.
Which raises this question: Even if Batman or Frozen was an amazing story, had something that really resonated with and inspired audiences – if (for some reason) the media chose to not mass produce everything and anything into relating paraphernalia, would people’s short attention spans soon forget that “amazing” story? The more people see of something, the more important they think it is. So in theory, could media giants start a mass marketing campaign on a completely irrelevant character and trick society into thinking this was the “next big thing”? Or is society as a whole smart enough to differentiate the difference between something that has a greater meaning behind it, and something completely meaningless?
Meehan, Ellen R. Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!”:The Political Economy of a Commercial Intertext. 48-62. PDF.