Individualism versus Dependence: The dichotomy of America's two standards

Every once in a while I find myself browsing the ads on apple.com/startpage, the home screen of Safari. Apple has catchy ads and nice pictures, and owns the one form of technology I follow - the iPod. Today I opened a few safari browsers with the intent of searching the web and finding potential topics for a blog post. This was the first time I actually went in search of something to write about, and in all honesty, my heart wasn't really in it. The beauty of blogging is that you can write about what's on your mind, and it felt phony to go searching for something to write about. I glanced over a few websites before abandoning my search and opening another page in order to go to facebook.com, the sign of ultimate defeat. Once on facebook, I find it hard to move away. On the apple page was an ad with the title "Be your own Cupid." Below that was an advertisement for "mobile Me" and other ads for "your Mac" and a bunch of the classic "i"s like "iwork." In general the focus was on the individual. The overall message was that each individual can find and buy for themselves what they want from Apple. Even Valentine's day can focus on the individual, and each computer and each application is in one's control. The emphasis on me as an individual made me think of the various apple electronics I own. I thought about my iPhone and the fact that I need to buy a new case for it. Next thing I knew I had picked out a case online and was entering my credit card information. Today at dinner I found myself asking my dad to buy me a new case, and not an hour later I had already ordered one for myself. I picked out the color and had it delivered to me at Andover. It made me feel grateful to Apple for being so easy to use or even "helpful," although no one specifically helped me. It's interesting how Apple's emphasis on the individual places that person in a position of wanting to buy things for themselves. It's nice to buy things for ourselves and it makes us feel as if we are independent, emotionally and physically capable of buying what we want or need. In many jewelry commercials the emphasis is on reliance and relationships. The man buys the woman a ring and the woman waits for him to buy the ring. A diamond bought by a woman for herself is hardly liberating or exciting. If anything, it is a reminder of something we don't have. I remember a scene in the Sex and the City Movie where Samantha is angry that her boyfriend outbid her at an auction for a ring that she wanted to buy for herself. While she was happy to have the ring, she was also frustrated that he had bought it for her. She said she wanted to buy it for herself as a sign of her independence and prosperous career, and her friends immediately chimed in with proclamations about how it symbolized his love for her. She seemed to think it was a harbinger for a life in which she relied too heavily on him. By the end of the movie she had abandoned her relationship for the life as a single woman. I'm wondering why some companies focus advertising on individualism and some on reliance on others. The ipod and jewelry are targeting different age groups most likely. Does age decide what focus advertisers take? Does it depend on the product itself rather than the demographics trying to being reached? I suppose jewelry shops make a lot of their money selling diamond wedding rings and anniversary gifts, so can they subsist over advertising to a specific demographic, such as engaged or married 25 to 40 year olds? Kay jewelers for instance has the classic jingle "Every kiss begins with Kay," which emphasizes reliance on both a partner and an item of jewelry. Essentially, they are saying that a wealthy partner with good taste in jewelry is necessary in any girl's life or any girl wanting jewels. There seems to be a rift in the media between relying only on oneself and relying on others. I think striking a balance between both would be most rewarding, but in advertising the two don't seem to mesh. I've seen Apple advertising buying something for oneself or for a loved one, but I've never seen them target anyone besides the individual. Never have they said "This would be perfect for your boyfriend to buy you" or "Why don't you add this to your Christmas list." Apple gives us the power to change our lives and the lives of others, whereas stores like Kay Jewelers shows us the power we have to change others lives or the power others have to change our lives. Even though I've identified this polarity, and tried to do some research online, I'm left wondering what an advertising agency would say about this. When do they assign buying power to the individual and when do they assign it to someone else? When is one perspective more advantageous than the other?

Haiti

On Wednesday I was searching for information on how to donate to Haiti and I stumbled upon the blog of Wyclef Jean, a Haitian rapper and musician. The blog (http://wyclefjean.wordpress.com/) was exclusively focused (for the past few days) on what specific steps Americans can take to assist Haiti, as well as a personal plea from the famous musician Quincy Jones. I'm really impressed by the website's focus on providing relief rather than emphasizing the tragedy in a way that tries to appeal to American's fascination with disaster. While Wyclef's organization, Yele, obviously acknowledges the awful events, it has mobilized in a way that few others seem to have. Wyclef Jean is using his fame and power in a way that goes beyond just donating some money and going back to a life of luxury. He has provided lists of items Haitians need, as well as places for these items to be dropped off. I've been surprised by the lack of information available on how people can work to help Haitians. Even the Red cross' website (www.redcross.org) has focused not on how people can help but on what they (the red cross) have been doing. Articles such as "Red Cross Continuing to Push Aid to Haiti Amid Difficult Conditions" and "CBS News Helps Red Cross Transport Blood into Haiti," read as them wanting praise for the efforts being made. Evidently, red cross is an amazing organization, but why have they not made information on providing donations readily available? There is a "Donate Now" button in the corner, but in the middle of the page are advertisements about "winter preparedness tips" and getting the flu shot. I know there's only so much one organization can do, but why don't they too have visible lists of materials needed in Haiti? Why haven't they provided multiple outlets for donations or relief? Why are they focusing on the flu shot when people are dying every single minute? The bandaids and blankets I send aren't going to go very far, but if every person at Andover or everyone in Massachusetts even sent a box of band-aids and some blankets, it could achieve something. I feel bad for only thinking about Haiti about 5% of the day. My thoughts have been consumed by school and college and senior hour. I've definitely relied on the Red Cross and other organizations to deal with this crisis while I go on with my life. I'm ready to focus more on what I can do so far removed from the crisis, but I searched for 30 minutes before finding a site that advertised more than texting money in or paying with a credit card. If other media sources such as the Boston Globe made giving donations to Haiti Relief take over the whole "above the fold" section of their website maybe more people would donate. If they wrote articles on exactly what is needed in Haiti and organized specific places for these things to be collected maybe people would donate. These organizations have immense power but it seems like they aren't really doing all that they can. It's great that CBS news is bringing blood to Haiti, but maybe they should stop advertising that and start making donating more available. Their website has flashy ads advertising computers, but maybe flashy ads advertising helping Haiti would make more people notice. I read an article on CBS news about how it's going to be hard to make sure the aid money doesn't get lost in the corrupt government. While the article merits thought, since there have been questionable disappearances in Haiti of aid money in the past, the article appeals to those of us who want a scandal. The article's subtitle is "Corruption, Theft, Violence Will Add to Challenges of Making Sure Aid is Properly Spent." I don't understand how violence will lead to the disappearance of aid money. The money is not going to be carried around in suitcases on the streets, the holder mugged and robbed. The government of Haiti probably wouldn't openly assault someone donating aid money in order to get their hands on it. This article is an appeal to the drama queens and Law and Order addicts of America, and as a small concession they've included a tiny link named "How to Help Victims." After the link they discuss how aid money has disappeared in the past in Haiti and render giving aid something to be seriously questioned. I'm glad people like Wyclef Jean are using their power to encourage donations as I feel as if our country, myself included, isn't doing enough to help. Ms. Sykes' email about giving aid to Haiti is wonderful, and I wish CBS and the Boston Globe would mobilize and act in similar ways.

Ready for Launch: the Development of Yahoo's music website

A few years ago Launch music magazine was bought by Yahoo. Its website, previously known as launch.com transformed into music.yahoo.com. Until a few days ago I hadn't been on launch.com in over a year. I remembered that it's name had changed and I was worried that it would be found at a new web address, one I didn't know. However, when I typed launch.com into my web browser it redirected me to music.yahoo.com sans conflict. This action got me thinking about companies bought out by another, which lead me back to the article we read tonight about Time Warner and AOL. I'm interested to know what motivations companies generally have for buying out or merging with another. For AOL and Time Warner the goal appeared to be a compilation of two large media companies with different specialties, joined by the common purpose of advancing the oh-so-hip-internet. Was money the real object of this merger? Why would a company like Yahoo buy out a music magazine? Launch.com barely resembles the site it once was. What was nice about Launch was its simplicity. A user typed in the name of a video and then could watch it, for free, as many times as they wanted. There were no subscriptions or emails or any conspicuous or annoying advertising. Now yahoo.music.com is an overly flashy, pop-music centered site that in no way embodies simplicity or ease. The first half of it, the "above the fold" section is filled half way with circulating ads, advertising Mariah Carey's "Diva Moments" and American Idol. The purple color of Yahoo Music's symbol (a pair of headphones with a Y on them), adorning the site, is another testament to the change launch has undergone. One thing I have noticed is that Yahoo has managed to procure interviews with famous musicians and live performances exclusive to Yahoo, a feat that Launch was not able to achieve. I wonder how Yahoo justified changing Launch so much. They did buy the company, but how did they maintain the demographic viewing Launch.com without angering a lot of loyal fans? Had I known Launch was being sold I would have worried about the outcome of its acquisition by such a large media system. I wonder what the site viewer statistics have been since the change, and what the Demographic has transformed into. Overall, I'm wondering how companies like AOL, who seemed to be in more power than Time Warner, and Yahoo, combine with or buy other companies without chasing away fans of the old company or without changing the Demographic. Do these companies think about demographics before buying or changing an acquisition, deciding whether or not they plan to take a new spin on the Demographic or not? Are they looking to expand their demographic with new acquisitions or buy up and control a specific demographic, such as teenage pop lovers.