I've recently gone back to read an old classic: Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. In it, Toffler discusses various aspects of Future Shock as an extension of the concept of culture shock. One experiences culture shock when one finds oneself suddenly in a different culture, but it can also happen if culture changes faster than one can adapt to the change. By the same token, future shock happens when changes in technology happen faster than one can adjust to the changes those technologies bring about. It was an important insight at the time, which was 1970.
Well, his predictions for the post-1970 future were interesting, but it's enlightening to see what he got spectacularly wrong. The one thing he got most obviously wrong (to me) was the prediction that companies would never be able to achieve lasting brand loyalty - because brands changed so rapidly. Noting that consumers regularly couldn't find their favorite brand on the store shelves anymore, Toffler concluded that brand loyalty was impossible in such a shifting environment.
This is laughable given what we know today, because we know that these brands disappeared from store shelves not due to consumers' choices but through corporate takeovers. Products were consolidated, and consolidated, and consolidated again until every variety of product was left with only two or three super-brands competing with each other. By the 1980's, there were almost no independent brands left. All one could find was Coke vs. Pepsi. McDonald's vs. Burger King. Nike vs. Reebok. And where there seemed to be some sub-brands beneath these behemoths, those sub-brands turned out to be mere subsidiaries of the larger corporations. There might be 30 different brands of soap, but they all boiled down either Procter & Gamble or Colgate Palmolive. Try to find something outside the giant corporations, and the options were all but nonexistent.
So a kind of brand loyalty was achieved at last - not by brands truly putting preferred products on the shelves, but by corporations eliminating the competition one by one, until finally, only one giant competitor remained - and anti-trust laws prevented them from eating that one as well.
But removal of choice was not the only way they achieved brand loyalty. For most, additional brand loyalty was achieved by appealing to the emotional center of the human brain - creating a sense of belonging to a "tribe" that was critical to one's identity. In this way, consumers which bought into the identity also bought the product. "We're the Pepsi Generation!" cried Pepsi in the 80's, while Coke marketed itself as "The Real Thing." Dr. Pepper was even more brazen in this tactic advertising, "I'm a Pepper! Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?" McDonald's achieved amazing success by recognizing that customers saw eating there as taking a break. Their resulting ad campaign, "You deserve a break today," caused millions to identify with McDonald's as their place to take a break, and sales soared. Wheaties marketed itself, thanks largely to Bruce Jenner (back when she was "Bruce"), as "The Brand of Champions," meaning if you wanted to be a winner (and who doesn't?), then logically that had to be your cereal. Sales responded accordingly.
There is, however, another way to appeal to the emotions of consumers, and it can't be done with most products. One can create fierce brand loyalty by demonizing the competition.
We see this in a limited way in sports. Chicago Bears fans refer to their team as "Grizzlies" and the Green Bay Packers as "fudge packers." Green Bay fans counter by calling their team "Packerderms" and the Chicago team as "teddy bears." There are innumerable similar examples: Philadelphia Eagles vs. New England Patriots, Boston Red Sox vs. New York Yankees... the rivalry list goes on and on, with fans utterly demonizing the competition, and lionizing their own team.
Of course, these fans haven't done a damned thing to help their team win, other than buy tickets and cheer. But they see "their" team as a sense of identity - and that's the point. Even though they haven't stepped one foot on the playing field, they refer to "their" team as "us" and "we." And if they win, they then get to say, "we won!" as if they lifted one finger.
Also, the NFL stops short of outright endorsing demonizations of the other team. After all, at the end of each game, fans must go home peacefully.
When it comes to store-bought products, if corporations try to demonize their competition, they quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an expensive lawsuit. The plaintiff can claim that the negative ad is libel, and unfairly damages their ability to do business. Such a plaintiff invariably wins these lawsuits, and so corporations have learned to compete fairly, or at least be subtle about their slander.
And here's my major point: Such restrictions do not exist in politics. In fact, demonizing one's opponent while on the campaign trail is considered to be one of the most time-honored versions of free speech. So political demonization does not have the legal backlash that product demonization has. Oh, libel suits abound in politics, to be sure, especially if a slanderous claim has no basis whatsoever in fact. But on the whole, inciting hatred of the political opposition is not frowned upon in law. In fact, it is openly called for.
This would be just fine, except it has taken a sharp turn for the worse, because the NEWS has now been drafted into this war of words. There's always been bias in newspapers and media, but media networks have now been bought out by corporate consolidators who are experts in building brand loyalty, and they are not above using demonization to do it! On the contrary, they rely on it to drive up ratings! The op-ed page, once relegated to the back page of every newspaper, has now been made prime-time television on Fox News and its more right-wing cousins, OANN and NewsMax. Full-throated demonization has now been disguised as an official news broadcast - and millions buy into it! Democrats are demonized, 24-7, on millions of networks, everywhere. On the more liberal side, there is some bias to be sure, but news is still essentially news. The demonization is largely one-sided towards Democrats.
And this demonization is why millions are willing to attack the very Capitol itself rather than allow one little old fart of a Democrat to be sworn in.
They are literally generating Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" on purpose.
The greatest need in our nation, right now, is for this ongoing travesty to stop!
We can't stop free speech - that's an absolute - but we can insist that news be news! You can lie and demonize anywhere else, but not there. No one must engage in KLONNING any more. No more featuring op ed without a countering voice on the other side. No more featuring op ed in a prime time slot! In fact, no more passing op ed off as news at all!
Lying on a news network IS shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There is fundamentally no difference.
At long last, the shellac must be scraped off of the polished turd! The stink must permeate the nostrils of everyone who was wrongly convinced that Trump was even remotely an option!
We need this more than we need oxygen. At long last, let news be news and nothing else!
Eric
*
