Consume/d
Excerpt from MA Dissertation
© Olga Mitterfellner 1
18-10-2005
Central Saint Martins School of Art and Design
MA Design for Textile Futures
Dissertation
Olga Mitterfellner
(17, 717 words)
© Olga Mitterfellner 2
C♀nsume/d
Is the female consumer happily consuming or is she
being happily consumed?
© Olga Mitterfellner 3
Image1: Neil Street, Covent Garden, London, 02-2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 4
Abstract
This thesis attempts to examine today’s woman within the consumer world and reveal whether she is subjected to
negative manipulation or whether she is free from it and hence content. In order to establish a wide scope of
arguments, different areas of marketing and society are analysed including psychology of advertising, mass media,
sociology and art with an in-depth look at the goods which she is subjected to, such as fashion clothing, beauty
products, etc.
Furthermore the role of the female consumer and the child consumer is represented and scrutinized by studying the
current evolvements of the mass media and fashion advertising in conjunction with product placement. The thesis also
researches the origins of the Barbie doll and looks at the influence of the toy on children.
Finally a conclusion is drawn which explains why today’s female consumer is indeed being consumed by pleased
corporations and why she cannot be “happily consuming” at the same time.
© Olga Mitterfellner 5
Contents: page
List of Images 06
Introduction 08
Chapter 1 - Awareness or what we know about consumerism at first glance. 12
Chapter 2 - Soft Sell or how women are sold tasty things. 23
Chapter 3 - Media Beauty and Imitation or how celebrities and beauty products make a good sale but no sense. 29
Chapter 4 - Manipulation of Opinion or why it’s not us who really makes up our mind. 39
Chapter 5 - Pay Here or why luxury brands like to cause over expenditure. 45
Chapter 6 - Kids’ Contest or how marketing for children turns them into sexy adults. 53
Chapter 7 - American Dream or how a dream can really be a nightmare. 62
Chapter 8 - Barbie: Origins, Influence, Racism or why the uncovered and dissected doll is not so pretty. 66
Chapter 9 - Other Forces or how some attempts are made to divert us from our consumer binge. 80
Conclusion 89
References 94
Bibliography 98
© Olga Mitterfellner 6
List of Images
Image 1: Neil Street, Covent Garden, London, 02-2004.
Images 2: All from central London, 2004.
Image 3: Stuart Weitzman, 2004.
Image 4: Maslow, www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html
Image 5: Baldini, 2004.
Image 6: Philosophy, http://philosophy.com/ProductDetail.jsp?Item=philprod0308
Images 7: Hello! magazine No 807, March 16, 2004.
Image 8, 9: Elle Magazine, March 2004.
Image 9: University of Dayton, Consumer Behavior, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~sstumpf/cbdecisionmaking.html
Image 10: Images 10: Vogue Australia, April 2004.
Image 11: University of Dayton (Consumer Behavior, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~sstumpf/cbdecisionmaking.html)
Image 12: Gemma Ward in Vogue, April 2004.
Image 13: Image 13: Bernard Arnault photographed at his office in Paris, 2003. V Magazine, No 27.
Image 14: Image 14: Baby Gucci shoes, New Bond St, London 2002.
Image 15: Dior Kids catalogue, 2003
Image 16: Dior, 2004.
Image 17: Oppiofashion, 2000.
Image 18: www.dolcegabbana.it
© Olga Mitterfellner 7
Image 19: Giorgio Armani, 10 Magazine, 04-2004
Image 20: D&G Junior, Vogue April, 2004.
Image 21: Lovegrove, 2002:68
Images 22: Bild Lilli Cartoon, 1950s. Copyright Bild Zeitung. McDonough, Yona Zeldis (Ed.), 1999, “The Barbie Chronicles.”
Image 23:Collectorsworld, www.collectorsworld.net/bildlilli.htm, 27-01-2004.
Image 24: Barbie Through The Years, http://web.info-galaxy.com/Barbie/Through_the_Years/through_the_years.html, 29.01.2004.
Image 25: Barbie Fact File, Atlas Editions, 1999. D1-741-03-07
Image 26: Barbie Fact file, Atlas Editions, 1999. D1-741-04-07.
Image 27: http://www.aunt-jemima.com/tradition/difference.htm
Image 28: Cheap Date, cover front, S/S 2004.
Image 29: Cheap Date, S/S 2004.
Image 30: Cheap Date, S/S 2004.
Image 31: Cheap Date, S/S 2004.
Image 32: www.adbusters.org
Image 33: www.adbusters.org
Image 34, 35: Mag Hag. Payne and Ink. card
Image 36: Cindy Sherman, Untitled 1992
Image 37 - 39: Barbara Kruger, http://art.bgsu.edu/~deber/kruger.html
Image 40: Harrods shop window, author’s own.
© Olga Mitterfellner 8
Introduction
The state of consumerism today is at a crucial point, I believe. Women shop more than ever and fashion as well as life-
styling, is at a remarkable peak, maybe the highest in modern history.
The extent to which women shop and what they chose to purchase is not merely the equation of supply and demand
though, but a much more complex situation. According to Anthony Cortese, “In our capitalist economy, profit is the
vital pulse behind the production, distribution, and consumption of products and services.” (1999: p 11) If that is true, this
puts the entire market-driven society in a questionable position. If profit is the main raison d’être for products and
services, can we trust them? Can we trust the people who invent and make them? And more so, can we trust ourselves
when making purchasing choices?
Penny Sparke argues in her book “As long as its Pink” that a “vast number of goods within mainstream mass culture
which are designed by men in a masculine cultural setting [are] consumed and used by women in a feminine context.”
(1995: 9)
This is all very interesting for me as my background is that of a non-capitalist country. I was born in the former USSR and
partly grew up in a country where there was no commercial advertising, no shopping for pleasure and no marketing
manipulation. We had the basics in food and clothes if we were lucky and enjoyed life through other things than
© Olga Mitterfellner 9
shopping, like social gatherings with friends, sports, music and some TV for example. People didn’t judge each other
based on the things they had, but on their abilities, their kindness, honesty and human virtue.
When I started writing this thesis I realized that many facts of the market-manipulated West were very new to me,
though I had spent a considerable amount of time here. For example I had to examine advertising and try to decipher
what it really means.
The mass media says: “Obey the ad and you will reach ‘happiness and acceptance’” (Weissman, 1999: p19.)
Firstly, what exactly shall we obey and secondly, why is acceptance vital for happiness?
Kristin Noelle Weissman examines the woman and her beauty ideal, the Barbie doll, in her book “Barbie: The Icon, The
Image, The Ideal”, and makes an interesting discovery: In the Western culture it is of crucial importance to a woman
how she looks and how her appearance is evaluated by men. In fact, she completely hands over power to men and
lets them morally and sexually dominate her. Constantly she is judged by the superficial “lookism” of men and still
chooses to obey, as her survival in society seems to solely depend on a positive judgement. If, however, it is found that
she does not meet the beauty standards, she is labelled as “deficient, defective, a failure” (Weissman, 1999: p25) and
loses everything from status to social recognition. In general, Weissman notes, “relative to men of their age and social
status, women […] lack [...] recognized and culturally valued authority.” (Weissman, 1999: p 29).
© Olga Mitterfellner 10
It might seem like the entire Western hemisphere consists of undervalued women who are obsessed with appearances
and acceptance, dating back from historical ages and who despite emancipation are still stuck with symbols of the
past, like the Barbie doll. What though, is it that advertising does in order to fire-up women’s anxieties and which
products do they suggest for happiness and self-improvement?
Undoubtedly the obsession with beauty, youth and external appearance is a leading “point of purchase”. There is a
heightened awareness of ones looks and an ill concern with its updated state. The constant rotation of the latest
products in the shops sets the landscape for the chase. We strive to have the newest crème, researched and
developed in a chemical laboratory. The implications of modern science on marketing are those of a terrific persuader.
How can we possibly mistrust the achievements of forward-striving technology? It is not relevant, that technological
advances can drift far away from ethics and thus aesthetics.
Another issue to look at is the global industries which have a desire to spread, and what would be easier to do than to
use the natural human phenomenon of procreation? People multiply and by targeting children and especially young
girls, industries can spread wider and anchor themselves more strongly.
It is vital to understand that minds of little ones are manipulated in such a way, that the resulting adults are a different
breed of consumers than we are. If we behave compulsively based on manipulation, then what can this manipulation
do to the open and defenceless subconscious of children?
© Olga Mitterfellner 11
In my quest to uncover the truth about consumerism I turned to every possible source: I looked at advertising history and
the adverts around us today, I looked through many glossy fashion magazines, I walked down high streets taking photos
of shop fronts and roamed through stores, I asked women about their opinions, I sent out interviews over the internet to
people around the world. I read literature that is written by renowned academics, but I also read magazine editorials
and on-line articles from various sources. I wanted to have the all-rounded picture when it came to analysing
consumerism, and I believe I managed to achieve something close to it, but mostly I wanted to find evidence for my
suspicion, that there might be more going on under the surface than we know.
© Olga Mitterfellner 12
Chapter 1 – Awareness or what we know about consumerism at first glance.
What is the sphere of products that is offered to women on a daily basis, when she goes down the high street? I wanted
to know how many fashion items we come across when we walk past shops and which amount of items we perceive,
consciously or subconsciously. In March 2004 I took my digital camera and decided to walk down London’s central
shopping area. I started at Oxford Street with mainstream fashion stores at a lower price range, then turning onto South
Molton Street which sells predominantly shoes and finally New Bond Street which has luxury labels on offer.
Within one hour I took a series of pictures documented here:
© Olga Mitterfellner 13
© Olga Mitterfellner 14
© Olga Mitterfellner 15
© Olga Mitterfellner 16
© Olga Mitterfellner 17
Images 2: All from central London, 2004.
I spent about an hour taking these pictures while walking down the street, which is a longer time period than it would
take for a person without a camera to pass by all of these window displays and briefly glance at them, since I had to
focus on the various items to photograph them. What became evident when I returned home and saw the photos on
my computer screen is that I had taken an unexpectedly large amount of photos in a very short time and in a relatively
small geographical area – just a few streets. I had never been aware of the number of products our mind takes in during
a short walk. The displays alone must contribute to our desire to buy products, because a window shopper knows that
the product is right there, behind the glass window, in the store which can be obtained immediately by entering the
store. If you don’t like this one, you can go into the next one or the next, as they are conveniently located side-by-side.
© Olga Mitterfellner 18
In the Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, a complete bible on city shopping, John McMorrough explains the
evolution of city centres into the equivalent of an American mall and its strength:
[…] The influence of commercial retail has so permeated the idea of the city that it is impossible to separate the
notion of urbanity from shopping, the issue of resisting shopping’s spectacular lure has become irrelevant.
(Chung, 2001: p201)
It is true that the cluster brand stores in the centre of London can feel like the equivalent of a mall, but there are also the
many department stores which summarize all small boutiques into one big space that has no glass window barriers
between the different labels and products.
When you promenade through one of these department stores, like Debenhams, House of Fraser or Selfridges for
example, from the ground floor upwards you will see perfume and cosmetics, jewellery and watches, sunglasses and
hats, scarves, gloves and handbags, shoes, shirts, dresses, skirts, pants, jackets, socks, lingerie, fancy party dresses,
sportswear, children’s wear and men’s wear.
In Selfridges I interviewed 25 women (the age ranged from 17 to 60) who were on break from shopping in the in-store
coffee shop. I wanted to know how they felt about different aspects of consumerism and find out how much awareness
they have when buying things.
I asked the following 13 questions:
© Olga Mitterfellner 19
1. Do you like shopping?
2. What do you like to buy?
3. What did you buy?
4. How much did you spend?
5. Do you sometimes buy things you don’t really need?
6. Do you ever buy things because you liked the ad?
7. Have you heard about the book “No Logo”?
8. Have you read it?
9. Have you heard about an organization called Adbusters?
10. Have you heard about Greenpeace?
11. How old are you? (Optional)
12. Is advertising good or is it evil?
13. Do you think women are happily consuming or are they being happily consumed?
(Or the further explained version: Are women happy shoppers and buy things because they like them or are they
manipulated by big brands, advertising and marketing into purchasing things they don’t need?)
© Olga Mitterfellner 20
All women agreed that they liked shopping, especially for clothes and shoes or “anything that I can get my hands on,
really” as one lady remarked. They had spent between £10 and £600 in the first half of the shop hours and admitted to
sometimes buying things they don’t really need, sometimes enforced by advertising – a compulsive shopping action.
Nevertheless the opinions about advertising were mixed when I asked if they thought advertising was good or evil. There
were a variety of long responses and one immediate “yes it’s good and fair” from an elderly shopper.
Other women believed that advertising was not entirely evil but that it was influential on society and that it had to be
perceived with caution.
Most women had not heard of the book “No Logo” which critically examines consumerism, nor had they heard of the
Adbusters organization which actively tries to fight senseless shopping. They had, however, all heard about the
Greenpeace organization, which made me wonder if ecology is something which is publicly promoted on a much
broader scale as it concerns our immediate well-being, whereas anti-consumerist activities are left to discover for
inquisitive people, and are kept hush-hush to not interfere with global economy and its flawless flow.
As a final question I asked the research question of this thesis: “Do you think women are happily consuming or are they
being happily consumed?” Most women could not reply immediately and didn’t seem to understand what I meant.
When I explained the question further they stated their opinions, which were now badly articulated (in comparison to
the earlier questions). They generally didn’t know, and thought that women buy things out of free choice. Remarkably
most ladies felt the most uneasy answering this particular question, and appeared to be irritated about it. They even
© Olga Mitterfellner 21
looked confused and unhappy. One lady, in her mid-thirties and about 5 months pregnant, stated that she had “very
strong communist views” and expressed an equally strong opinion on consumed women: “I think women are individuals.
But I think by the end of the day we’re all consumed, whether we realize it or not consciously. It’s a competitive world
we live in; it’s very materialistic and it’s very backstabbing, so we all tend to want to fend for ourselves…it’s like dog-eat-
dog (laughs).”
Another interesting response was from a 28-year-old marketing teacher, who was the only one to have read “No Logo”,
admittedly because she uses it for her course: “I think certain purchasing behaviours are a product of people listening to
advertising, rather than because they need it or actually want it.”
There seem to be some consuming women who shop and stay aware of what they really need or want, as well as those
who fully let themselves go and become part of the consumed part of the world, perhaps mainly through the forces of
advertising which is much more cunning in trying to sell new things to us. Warren Berger, author of several books about
advertising explains some facts in his book “Advertising Today”, namely that in 2000, U.S companies spent $100 million
researching and testing their own adverts which are “conceived for commercial purposes, and controlled and
financed by corporations” (Berger, 2001: p 16, 13) Berger believes that advertising influences our lives more than we
perceive, when we are subjected to an average of 40,000 TV commercials per year (and that excludes billboards,
magazines and radio as well as packaging). “[…] today’s ads also inform and guide many of the important decisions
© Olga Mitterfellner 22
we make […] The ways in which ads are affecting and shaping our attitudes, lifestyles, and culture are too numerous to
tally.” (Berger, 2001: p 10)
© Olga Mitterfellner 23
Chapter 2 - Soft Sell or how women are sold tasty things.
Cortese notes in his book “Provocateur. Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising” that advertising has taken new
paths of strategy because “the consumer has become very distrusting of the hard sell. Now advertisers have to use a
very soft sell.” (Cortese, 1999: p 8)
As a result the product is not the primary focus anymore but for businesses this is a very effective approach. The centre
of attention lies on establishing a relationship with the customer and then letting him or her know that a product exists as
well. (Nunley, October 2001)
The Stuart Weitzman advert, for example, is ultimately there to sell us shoes (see image 3). But beforehand, what other
information is given? This is a photo of two chocolate-chip cookies and a glass of milk which in the U.S.A. is a seen as a
sweet treat and which we are tempted to want. Also it is humorous, because the typically round chocolate chips have
been substituted with ones that are shaped like women’s high heel shoes. The advert reads: “An old family recipe. Stuart
Weitzman – a little obsessed with shoes.” In this instance the shoes also become edible and appeal to one of our most
basic and highly important needs for food; a vital instinct to keep ourselves alive.
© Olga Mitterfellner 24
Image 3: Stuart Weitzman, 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 25
The natural need for nourishment has been placed by psychologist Abraham H. Maslow at the very foundation of his
renowned “Pyramid of the Hierarchies of Need”. (Maslow, 1954) The American psychologist noticed basic human needs
that are essential for survival and arranged them into the form of a pyramid which has the most vital needs at the
bottom and the less important ones thereafter in an upward movement. The physiological needs lie at the foundation
of the pyramid and are such as oxygen, water, protein, salt, sugar, calcium, and other minerals and vitamins. Also,
there’s the needs to be active, to rest, to sleep, to get rid of wastes (CO2, sweat, urine, and faeces), to avoid pain, and
to have sex. (Boeree, 1998: p 1)
Image 4: http: Maslow, www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html
© Olga Mitterfellner 26
What this can mean in relation to consumerism is that products that look or smell like food will always sell and will be
purchased even though we might not really need them. As Maslow (1954: p15) explains, humans need to fulfil the basic
needs first, before they can begin to think about anything else they might want or need. If we don’t have oxygen, we
will die. After that we desperately need water and then food. As nourishment is such a vital prerequisite for our survival, it
is in out instinct to want it strongly and this instinct sits deep in our subconscious.
In this second advert for shoes (image 5) they are again compared to food – this
time it’s candy. The message can be read like this: For some reason, nibbling on
the lower part of a heel that presumably touches the dirty street is not adverse but
rather desirable, because this strappy sandal is just too delicious!
In the marketing terms the appeal of food and the technique of “Soft Sell” can be
used as a smart combination, as demonstrated in samples from the Philosophy
range of skincare products. Every item, be it shower gel, face cream or nail polish,
has a unique “philosophy” printed on the bottle or jar. The philosophy itself seems
very plausible, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with the product or its function.
Image 5: Baldini, 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 27
The range of bath products sounds yummy and attractive: “Strawberry Milkshake”, “Hazelnut Latte” and so on.
I have observed female customers who purchased Philosophy while working in the Liberty Beauty Hall on Regent Street
in London. A female customer would smell the bottle and scream: “Oh, I just HAVE to have it!” she was being more than
honest about it, or rather her physiology is. She might end up buying the “Lemon Meringue Pie” shower crème because
it triggers cravings for food as seen in Maslow’s pyramid.
This product has the following wisdom to offer:
Philosophy: smelling a food can reduce our cravings for that food - we believe our cookbook flavors
offer a diet that any shower junkie can follow!
Image 6: Philosophy, http://philosophy.com/ProductDetail.jsp?Item=philprod0308
© Olga Mitterfellner 28
The actual use for the yellow liquid is printed on the bottle below the philosophy: “3-in-1 ultra rich shampoo, conditioner
and body wash.”
Maybe it is true and a shower in the soap will reduce cravings and help a woman in her desire for ideal body weight –
another phenomenon of modern times. If, however, the clean and freshly showered person experiences cravings for a
real sweet treat right after using the soap, it doesn’t matter to Philosophy: Their task is done because the sale has been
made and food was the key factor in achieving it.
© Olga Mitterfellner 29
Chapter 3 - Media Beauty and Imitation or how celebrities and beauty products make a good sale but
no sense.
Naomi Wolf argues in her popular book “Beauty Myth”, that beauty has become a new weapon that is used against
women and their feeling of self-worth. The media contributes massively to establishing and keeping alive the beauty
myth because it thrives on the advertising and editorials of beauty products and brands, a phenomenon traceable to
1917, when Walter Dill Scott published his book called “The Psychology of Advertising”. In the 1950s magazine
advertising targeted bored and insecure housewives as it was believed that their emotional flaws could be turned into
commercial revenue by selling them things to improve the house. Later in the 20th century women joined the work force
and made marketers change the focus away from household commodities to toiletries and cosmetics. By 1989
“’toiletries/ cosmetics’ ad revenue offered $650 million to the magazines.” (Wolf, 1992: p 65)
Magazines of the early 21st century offer a vast variety of beauty products and editorial tips on how to achieve
perfection and a similar appearance to that of celebrities. There is an army of publications to chose from, such as
Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, GQ, Vanity Fair, Harper’s Bazaar, Elle, Hello!, Ok! and many more.
Here you can see a selection of four Hollywood stars photographed at the 2004 Oscars and taken from an editorial 2-
page spread of Hello! magazine entitled “The Jewels That Helped the Stars to Glitter”. (See images 7)
© Olga Mitterfellner 30
Hello! is one of several popular magazines reporting on celebrities on a large-scale format (Note that all four women -
the original features 8 stars - have almost identical make-up on.)
Images 7: Hello! magazine No 807, March 16, 2004.
Wolf believes that advertising in women’s magazines is important “because [magazines] represent women’s mass
culture.” (Wolf, 1991: p 70) What this means is that women are likely to perceive the content of fashionable magazines
as a desired reality and will even try to change their appearance to fit in with a recommended standard of beauty. I
would argue that there is a steadily increasing perfusion of celebrity images in the media, creating an almost obsessive
interest in their looks and lifestyles and the pressure to imitate both.
© Olga Mitterfellner 31
In this example the pale and glittery look of the Hollywood divas can easily be repeated by a reader if she follows the
L’Oreal advert and uses “Glam Shine”.
This ad looks remarkably similar to Renee Zellweger’s Oscars
publicity shot (far right): the head is slanted to the side (opposite
directions), the model looks very similar in colour of eyes, form of
lips, eye lashes, age and even the styling of the hair.
Cortese believes that the mind has an incompetence to resist
marketing manipulation and so is easily accessible for advertisers
to send us messages which are camouflaged within. The average
two seconds that a person spends looking at an ad while flipping
through a magazine, must be sufficient to make us choose a
brand or product. (Cortese, 1999: p27)
The message here is to “dare to dazzle!” by using a liquid lipstick
that gives “vibrant shine” through “multi-tone 3D colour”.
Image 8, 9: Elle Magazine, March 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 32
Image 9: Elle Magazine, March 2004.
Here is a blown-up image of the 3-D, dazzling lips that might be perceived as scary and surreal by some, though I
already have spotted a girl in a trendy London night club only last week-end who was wearing that same shade of
Glam Shine, currently advertised in most fashion magazines and some billboards.
Perhaps this shows that women seem to go out and try the gloss because they want to imitate the stars or supermodels
and increase a feeling of self-worth, without consciously and individually appraising the aesthetic value of these 3-D lips,
or perhaps the media has such a strong influence on individuals that they can sell anything to us – by bombarding us
with product-specific imagery.
It is also important to look at who stands behind adverts like this one. In this case it is a powerful corporation, the L’Oreal
Group, that also owns Vichy, Biotherm, Shu Uemura, Cacharel, Garnier, Helena Rubinstein, Lancôme, Kiehl’s, Redken,
Maybelline and several more.
© Olga Mitterfellner 33
Their motto is “Passion for Beauty” and the
hope to share our passions with you: our passion for what we do, for our products, for innovation. These goals are
the remarkable adventure that the men and women of L'Oréal have shared for almost a century. We are proud
to be the world leader in cosmetics. Even more, we are filled with enthusiasm for the future, for the progress and
discoveries of our research laboratories and for the wealth of opportunities to win new markets. Perhaps the real
adventure is only just beginning!
We want you to know that our doors are always open to fresh inspirations and new talents. (Groupe L’Oreal,
http://www.loreal.com/us/index.asp)
L’Oreal’s century-old adventure includes the running of 42 factories worldwide which employ 50,500 workers of which
2900 employees perform the research and development of new products. Every year more than 3000 formulas are
developed and marketed. (Groupe L’Oreal, 2004: http://www.loreal.com/us/index.asp) You can find this kind of
boastful numerical information on the official L’Oréal website. What L’Oréal doesn’t brag about is that only 3% of sales
revenue is spent on research and 25% - 30% is spent on marketing and advertising. Additionally, the research they speak
of is not real scientific work. The kinds of chemicals used in L’Oréal creations do not require approval from institutions like
the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), unlike real pharmaceutical beauty companies that cannot launch a product
without the appropriate government authorization. (Financial Times, 2003).
© Olga Mitterfellner 34
And there is more deceit: Although it seems like L’Oreal offers diversity to the customers through the many different
brands it owns, it is merely an illusion. Whichever brand you chose it is all part of the big corporation, governed by the
same business strategies that want females to feel insecure and live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. One might
think she is buying Garnier shampoo because she likes it, and conditioner from L’Oreal, because she likes it more than
the one from Garnier. But the feeling of individual choice becomes an illusion when you realize that the profits from your
unique choice flows back to exactly the same corporation which generates annual sales of 14 billion Euros that way.
What’s worse is that women are targeted on a global scale with media imagery bombardments, thus being forced to
succumb to the power of slogans induced by corporations such as L’Oreal. They are claiming that women purchase
cosmetics because they’re “worth it”. What is self worth I wonder, and does it grow when you apply 3-D lip gloss? If so,
then is this the sort of thing we base our human values on?
The British documentary from 2002 entitled “Because you’re Worth It: 100 Years of Make-Up”, talks about the historical
development of make-up and its impact today with “more than 4000 new products [entering] the market place each
year”. It features archive films and live interviews with women who express their opinion about self-worth and cosmetics,
stating that some women need to put on make-up in the morning to be able to “face the world” , or that they feel
better about themselves if they have a fake tan, or lipstick on.
© Olga Mitterfellner 35
It then makes more sense to understand advertisements such as those of L’Oréal in the light of women’s emotional
support. Without the make-up women may feel unconfident and shy, perhaps even ugly. With it, however, they dare to
live, to laugh and to conquer the world.
In another advert L’Oréal encourages women to be confident and lively with the slogan “Don’t be afraid to express
yourself!” together with Ex-Supermodel Claudia Schiffer. (See image 10) On 15 small and seemingly carefree photos
Claudia makes faces at us. The photos have marks on the side which indicate that they are a contact sheet from a
fashion photo shoot. Contact sheets are used to determine which pictures are the best and in this advert they serve the
purpose of giving the flair of documenting “snapshots” of the model in action. What this advert is really selling is
revealed with a turn of the page. On the other side is a two-page spread with Claudia again, who is not smiling that
much anymore, perhaps because of the strange lines that are superimposed on her face.
© Olga Mitterfellner 36
Image 10: Vogue Australia, April 2004.
The reason for her happy escapade on the very first page is the use of L’Oréal’s “Wrinkle De-Crease” cream which
delivers “targeted anti-age action, from the age of 35”. The reader is also persuaded to believe in the seriousness of the
crème with medically enhanced terminology, which most people would not understand unless they were biochemists,
dermatologists or working for L’Oréal itself. The advert states that the miracle product “which visibly reduces expression
lines and wrinkles” contains the trademarked element Boswelox. What in God’s name is Boswelox? The advert explains
further that it “is a breakthrough phyto-complex, combining Boswellic extract and manganese to counteract skin micro-
© Olga Mitterfellner 37
creasing”. What in the world is micro-creasing? Do I micro-crease? If yes, then this is the first time in my life I’ve ever
thought about the micro-creasing that my face undergoes when I’m not afraid to express myself.
Such might be the paranoid thoughts of someone who is looking at the advert and reading the medical terminology.
It appears as if everything has been explained to you, and yet you don’t understand a thing. This way L’Oréal’s
rejuvenation campaign can gain authority over the readers who are startled by the simple fact that L’Oréal knows what
Boswelox is and they don’t.
The term Boswelox also sounds very similar to Botox, a chemical that is injected into the face to smoothe wrinkles, and so
offers a much cheaper and safer alternative to Botox. The result for L’Oréal is a constant rejuvenation of their bank
accounts: Anti-aging products make up more than half of the skin care market and outnumber make-up or fragrances
in sales. (Financial Times, 2003)
The obsession with wrinkle-free faces is a new and strong social phenomenon in the West and I would even argue that it
is the transferral of the 1950s housewives’ obsession with ironing clothes to perfection into the modern woman’s
obsession to iron out “expression lines and wrinkles”.
But what is the point of erasing these “expression lines”? As one woman stated in the previously mentioned
documentary “Because you’re worth it” on the use of Botox to wipe out all wrinkles in the forehead: ”If my face is always
like this [stretches out forehead to the sides with both hands], how could you ever know if I’m mad at you?”
© Olga Mitterfellner 38
This, I believe, shows the ridiculousness of such products as the above mentioned cream. If your goal is to eradicate lines
of expression, then what will your face show when you’re finally not “afraid to express yourself”? The human face is an
indicator of our moods and feelings, supported by numerous muscles that allow these expressions. Without them and
the wrinkles that they form we are merely as expressive as a Barbie doll: We smile but it is just showing teeth and not
feelings.
© Olga Mitterfellner 39
Chapter 4 - Manipulation of Opinion or why it’s not us who really makes up our mind.
The influential information we receive about fashion, beauty and general mass culture happenings comes to us through
the media, no doubt, such as magazines, billboards, posters, flyers, TV, radio, and the internet. But who invented these
modern methodologies of mass persuasion?
As early as 1928 the powers of media circulation were observed by leading thinkers of the Western world, namely the
U.S., the land which invented most known marketing tools. Edward L. Bernays, the father of Public Relations, wrote and
published several books on issues of mass culture and how to manipulate it successfully, entitled “Crystallizing Public
Opinion”, “An Outline of Careers”, “The Broadway Anthology” and “Propaganda”. In the latter he expresses his views on
the need to manipulate and control the masses:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the mass is an important
element in democratic society. Those who manipulate […] constitute an invisible government […], the true ruling
power of our country.” (Bernays, 1928: p9)
Bernays also finds that due to a complex development of society this “invisible government” and new technical tools
are necessary (and have indeed been invented) “by which opinion may be regimented”, which are newspapers,
railroads, telephone, telegraph, radio, airplanes” and more (Bernays, 1928: p12)
© Olga Mitterfellner 40
What Bernays describes so early in the 20th century is the highly important development of the tools named above
which enable big companies, corporations and conglomerates (the three evil Cs) to effectively and rapidly manipulate
the opinion and beliefs of masses – a phenomenon which has been understood 76 years ago and which has been
practiced to perfection ever since! But what is the mission behind this manipulation? Are people of democratic societies
really aware of what is being done to them, and have they really “agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality”
that their opinions should be “narrowed down to [a] field of choice”? (Bernays, 1928: p10)
And what are the results of the narrowing down of our choices and own good judgement to a regimented selection?
Bernays believes that “ideas can be spread rapidly and even instantaneously over the whole of America” (Bernays,
1928: p 13) and so people can be grouped together into common action, regardless of how far apart they are
geographically. This affects areas of social, political, economic, racial, religious and ethical content.
In general, of course, it is good for people who share the same interests, but are located far apart, to be able to
communicate and share these opinions due to modern technology, but it is a completely different situation, if it is an
“invisible government” that groups them together. What is more shocking is that Bernays wrote this in the 1920s, and
gave way for invisible manipulators to practice their habits for almost eight decades, and may well have created skilful
monsters of manipulation. He was also Sigmund Freud’s Nephew, living in New York.
© Olga Mitterfellner 41
Then there was “The Psychological Corporation”, an organization founded in 1921 and kept fairly quiet, which held
members who were either Jewish-European immigrants trained in psychology, or American behaviourists. The
corporation, believed that the control of “psycho-technology” should be “in the hands of professional psychologists”
and “to insure its staying there”. They also were “experts in marketing psychological expertise” and the use of
“psychoanalytical concepts to influence public opinion.”(Chung, 2001: p562)
Other members of the Corporation, like John B. Watson, America’s best-known and perhaps scariest behaviourist,
“proclaimed the need for a restructuring of society in which advertising would, in effect, serve as the modern
replacement for family, religion, and other socializing agents.” (Chung, 2001: p562)
Shockingly his vision might have come true as James B. Twichell remarks in 2001: “We understand each other not by
sharing religion, politics, or ideas. We share branded things. We speak the Esperanto of advertising, luxe populi.”
(Twitchell, 2001: pxv)
Later on in the 20th century Ernest Dichter, president of the American Institute for Motivational Research and author of
the book “Motivating Human Behavior” (1971), compared humans to Pavlov’s dogs and said that “one can motivate
[people] to change habitual behaviors which are protective devices in the first place” by using techniques of reward
and punishment. (Dichter 1971: p17)
Interestingly enough today it is practically impossible to get a hold of the literary works of the members of the
Psychological Corporation or titles by such authors as Dichter and Bernays. Most books are out-of-print and there are
© Olga Mitterfellner 42
only very few copies available in the world. This seems alarming, considering that these psychologists have tutored big
and influential companies on how to manipulate us, the several billions of people around the world. Really, these books
should be part of a mandatory curriculum in school and people should be taught from an early age how to be aware
of opinion manipulators, but it is made sure that no one reaches this degree of awareness. Firstly it would produce the
undesirable and “unhealthy” consumers who are “too critical” as a marketing service called them (Wolf, 1991: p65),
and secondly the Psychological Corporation was founded and is owned by a company called Harcourt, which
publishes and distributes educational books worldwide for students and teachers. “Harcourt companies provide a
variety of books, print, and electronic learning materials, assessments, and professional development programs” which
“for over three-quarters of a century” has been “confidently used [by] virtually every public, private, and parochial
school in the nation.”(Harcourt, www.harcourt.com)
It seems that Harcourt and the Psychological Corporation have the means to rule the world and rule our minds,
especially because they also developed a technique called “Psychogramming” which maps out the realms of the
human mind and helps marketers to better understand consumers and target them more effectively, all in the name of
personal profit. Decision making is examined and our personal, individual choices are no longer ours, because
marketers know about them, before we even make them. Our choices become the result of a cunning chart devoted
to manipulating consumer bahavior, the word that draws its strength from the marriage of marketing and psychology.
© Olga Mitterfellner 43
Image 11: University of Dayton (Consumer Behavior, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~sstumpf/cbdecisionmaking.html)
© Olga Mitterfellner 44
There are two main types of mental processing an individual can do to reach a decision about a problem at
hand. The first type of processing is called “systematic processing”. Systematic processing involves in depth
analysis and scrutinization of all stimuli in the environment (including the persuasive arguments of the marketer).
The other type of mental processing is called “heuristic processing”, which involves taking mental short-cuts or
"rules-of thumb" to come to a decision. A very popular heuristic that many people often take is the "like-agree"
heuristic that leads people to make the same decision as people that they like did. One very famous example of
marketers trying to get consumers to use this heuristic is putting famous people (i.e. Michael Jordan for Nike) in
their advertisements. (Consumer Behavior, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~sstumpf/cbdecisionmaking.html)
© Olga Mitterfellner 45
Chapter 5 - Pay here or why luxury brands like to cause over expenditure.
Chasing the beauty cream in the Prada outfit. Asking for Louis Vuitton while looking at the Cartier watch. Eating Sashimi
and partying at Annabel’s. Some London women live this life, others envy it, but they all have one thing in common:
they want the big names. James B. Twitchell argues that today’s experiences linked with luxury “show the developing of
religious nature” and that “consumption mimics epiphany […] and becomes an almost transcendental experience.”
(Twitchell, 2001: pxv)
London’s local reporter Anne Ashworth reports in The Times of a Jimmy Choo party that took place in the New Bond
Street store in April 2004 held for the city’s affluent women who want to socialize and shop. They were responsible for the
sale of 100 pairs of Jimmy Choo shoes in two hours, each costing between £250 and £400. The reporter concludes after
her visit to the boutique that it is far too expensive for the regular woman to spend such amounts, since “to lay out £400
on a pair of shoes, you need to earn £666 before tax.” (Ashworth, p10) Ashworth leaves the party without having bought
any shoes or handbag, despite the temptation. However, not all ladies are as careful and reasonable as Ashworth, who
calculates the amount of money she has to earn by adding taxes to the cost of a pair of shoes. They rather tend to
overspend while pursuing an agreeable lifestyle. Rebecca Arnold believes that
© Olga Mitterfellner 46
the moral implications of over-expenditure on fashion were overridden by the desire to fit into a particular group,
to achieve a particular sartorial identity convincingly enough to be accepted by rather than excluded from the
realms of the fashionable. (Arnold, 2001: p 10)
This over-expenditure touches peoples lives and makes them reach deep into their wallets as the article entitled “Oops,
I’m Bankrupt!” published in The Independent, shows: Half of all cases in London’s Bankruptcy Advisory Centre are
personal bankrupts with an average debt of £30,000 to £50,000. (It is discharged after only 3 years due to Britain’s new
laws under Margaret Thatcher in 1986, which might encourage overhaul spending as well as the originally desired
spontaneous entrepreneurship.) An example of a young bankrupt female is Kate who owes £25,000 on six credit cards
and £14,000 on a bank loan from having paid for “clothes – although not an insane amount – eating out, drinks,
transport, running my car…”(Heathcote, 2003: p6,7)
So what is a sane amount of clothing and how much should it cost? If you open the April issue of British Vogue you will
find a 12-page photo shoot which tells you what you should wear at a party: Crystal embroidered Gucci dress, £23,120;
Butterfly Chloé necklace, from £141; Tulle cross-front embroidered dress from £5,466 at Louis Vuitton.
© Olga Mitterfellner 47
The list goes on and every other page in the magazine
shows adverts by such fashion brands as Gucci, Dior,
Louis Vuitton, Salvatore Ferragamo, Calvin Klein, Tod’s,
Valentino, Emporio Armani, Fendi, Gianfranco Ferre,
Escada and Chanel.
All adverts show young women between the ages of
15 to 30 who are wearing the luxury brands. In this
picture (Image 12) the model with the butterfly on her
neck is Gemma Ward, a 16-year-old school girl from
Australia. It seems to me as if the supermodels are
getting younger and younger every year.
So how can real women of that age live up to the
imposed standards and afford to wear all that when
an average salary after university education is
Image 12: Gemma Ward in Vogue, April 2004.
between £12,000 and £18,000 per annum?
© Olga Mitterfellner 48
Perhaps the featured items in the fashion magazines are mechanisms of escapism, carefully composed so that the
average woman can dissolve in dreams. However, the dream-factor will only reach so far, as every dream is based on
aspiration, striving to become reality. Women make every effort to enhance their looks and it is a natural phenomenon,
conceivably induced by the” male gaze” by which females are evaluated, or perhaps for their own pleasure.
Regardless of the motivation, in this case of overpriced editorials, they hardly offer a chance for the dream to become
reality.
Vogue reports that in their tradition girls who are used for photo shoots have to be beautiful but also “blue-
blooded or come from an interesting family, in the Vogue tradition” and that “the pressure is always on to find that
beautiful “real girl”, who is a Kennedy scion or a Getty or an heiress.” (Vogue, April: p119) For the heiress is it likely
possible to be shopping in fancy fashion houses and it is her reality, whereas for the normal woman it is a distorted
reality, available for £3.30 at every corner shop. On occasion the average-income woman will splash out on luxury
goods and cause temporary indentations in her bank account, and sometimes more serious problems such as the
bankruptcies mentioned earlier on.
Whether the rich or poor are spending, the revenues from luxury brand purchases go directly to the three biggest luxury
conglomerates, LVMH, PPR and Prada ,which contently rule and own most of the prestigious brands, including these
fashion labels:
© Olga Mitterfellner 49
LVMH: Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Sales in 2003: EUR 11 962 million
Fashion brands owned: Louis Vuitton, Moet-Hennessy, Hermes, Loewe, Celine, Christian Lacroix, Kenzo, Fendi, Givenchy,
Emilio Pucci, Marc Jacobs, Fendi, Stefano B, Thomas Pink, Donna Karan, Rossi Moda, Christian Dior, Guerlain, Sephora,
Acqui di Parma, La Samaritaine, Berluti, eLuxury. (Source: www.lvmh.com, 12-04-2004)
Pinault-Printemps-Redoute SA
Sales in 2000: EUR 24 360 million
Fashion brands owned: Boucheron, Gucci (which owns Sergio Rossi, Alexander McQueen, Yves St. Laurent, Stella
McCartney, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga). (Source: http://international.pprgroup.com, 12-04-2004)
Prada
Sales in 2000: EUR 1639 million
Owns: Jil Sander, Fendi, Helmut Lang, Church & Co., Genny, Azzedine Alaia. (Source:
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?COID=56418, 12-04-2004)
© Olga Mitterfellner 50
LVMH, the biggest and strongest of the three conglomerates, also owns other prestigious non-fashion brands, amongst
others, that literally “bubble over” with luxury. Those are Dom Perignon, Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, and
Pommery champagnes; Hennessy and Hine cognacs, as well as the Sephora cosmetics store. (Twichell, 2001: p128)
The Spring Preview 2004 edition of V Magazine presents a story on Louis
Vuitton as the company turns 150 years old this year.
The magazine interviews several strong faces within the company,
including Barnard Arnault, the chairman of LVMH and Yves Carcelle the
other chairman and CEO of Louis Vuitton Malletier.
Carcelle is asked whether fashion is foremost a creative or commercial
endeavour and from which side he approaches it. His reply: “You need a
creative approach that turns into a commercial success.” (V Magazine, 27)
Is this the answer to the mystery of fashion magazines and luxury labels? Do
they exist solely to establish their own success no matter what methods they
use to get the money out of the consumers pockets? With conjunct sales
of EUR 37961 million the three biggest fashion conglomerates must know
what they are doing.
Image 13: Bernard Arnault photographed at his office in Paris, 2003. V Magazine, No 27.
© Olga Mitterfellner 51
James B. Twichell humorously calls Bernard Arnault (see image13) one of the “nameless, faceless, wizards of Oz” who
“understood how to assemble opuluxe into a coherent pattern”. (Twichell, 2001: p129) According to Twichell, Arnault’s
success story with LVMH lies in the Frenchman’s American education which taught him that “value does not reside in
objects but in the perception of objects.” (Twichell, 2001: p129) Hence the allegory to the Wizard of Oz, who was great
only until his fraud was detected, because in reality the powerful ruler of the Kingdom of Oz was a regular man
operating a machine which made him look big, scary and omnipotent (without anyone having ever seen his real face).
Arnault’s operates a managerial machine to keep the consumer world well subordinated: “increasing the perceived
value of his products, decreasing the predatory behaviour of other producers, and expanding worldwide.” (Twichell,
2001: p130) By owning most of the top luxury brands that any consumer can remember, hiring designers and controlling
the licensed distribution of products, and most importantly investing in aggressive advertising “in glossy magazines”, the
world belongs to the “corporate octopus” LVMH. (Twichell, 2001: p130, 129).
In the case of the Wizard of Oz, the power of the magical man is shattered when Dorothy’s dog Toto, the main
character’s pet, pulls open the curtain behind which the wizard is hiding whilst operating the great machine. The wizard
is not all that powerful after all, but he is still a kind man who helps all the needy in the story. Is Bernard Arnault a really
nice man, too? There is no equivalent to Toto that can help us reveal the truth behind fashion conglomerates, we have
to be the inquisitive dog ourselves and sniff out the truth and try to gain insights into the operational mechanics of the
fashion world. The glossy magazines, the advertising and branding are maybe no more than fictional wizardry - and we
© Olga Mitterfellner 52
believe it like children believe in a fairy-tale story. If this fact does not bring shame to an individual, who realizes that his
or her naïveté is taken for granted then humanity is intellectually dead. If, however, one by one we can speak up about
the unrealistic and overpriced suggestions of the fashion world, then perhaps they will have to pull back their tentacles
and make new rules for a more fair game. I am not saying that anything radical should happen, like the abolishment of
fashion magazines and the introduction of hemp dresses for everyone, but a more open relationship with the consumers
would perhaps be enough to force greedy conglomerates to be less manipulative. People are not as dumb as they
are made out to be and they can think for themselves, provided they are given the chance and enough valid
information. The marketing to people should be mutually beneficial and not an uneasy relationship for one half of the
party.
© Olga Mitterfellner 53
Chapter 6 - Kids’ Contest or how marketing for children turns them into sexy adults.
The Luxury industry does not only affect the adult consumers, but also the children’s
market with a rapid increase. Designer names like Dior, Gucci and Dolce and
Gabbana have been offering clothes for kids in the recent years, starting from the
youngest possible age and guiding them through childhood until they become
mature and devoted consumers. Here on the left, for example is a pair of baby
shoes by Gucci, from their 2002 collection. (Image 14)
Image 14: Baby Gucci shoes, New Bond St, London 2002.
On a trip to the Dior store I was given promotional material, including a pop-up book
for the Dior kids range. It is made out of thick cardboard and folds up just like a
children’s book does. I assume Dior intends to give this “fun” book to parents who
shop at the boutique in the hope that the latter will give it to their kids, who in turn will
bug their parents to please, please buy them this or that item. Alternatively the
parents can choose themselves what they want to buy for their child, as the book
also features the “Baby Dior” line, which makes clothes for the toddlers. Image 15: Dior kids catalogue,
© Olga Mitterfellner 54
Naturally to promote the products effectively, luxury brands need to turn to both children and their parents (who have
the purchasing power) through the techniques of advertising. This type of advertising, however, which targets children, is
not as harmless as it seems. In the article “The Changing Image of Childhood”, the author Lynn Smith points out that in
advertising it is very common to see children as “caricatures of grown-ups – sexy grown-ups; rich, sophisticated grown-
ups; silly grown-ups on vacation in Waikiki.“ (Damhorst, 1999: p295)
These kinds of ads, Smith argues, rob children of their childhood and send the wrong kind of messages to kids and
parents alike: Young girls need to pay attention to their appearance, sexiness and expensive clothes rather than true
values such as talent, character and personal interests. Girls learn far too early to look at adult women as role models
and try to copy them, being consequently catapulted into a very adult life before their ready – both mentally and
physically.
Assuming that this argument is important I compared the luxury brands’ adverts for children with those of adults, across
the range of different designers that are found in fashion magazines.
In this first example of a Baby Dior fashion ad, the little girl is made up like an adolescent teen, or what Cortese calls a
“sexually mature” look. (Cortese, 1999: p65) Her lips are tinted, the eyes darkened, she is put in front of spotlights and has
her body contorted into a position which might indicate an illusion of breasts. Her head is tilted and the long hair is flying
back from a wind machine. Something seems to be distorted in the picture, or at least the sense of a happy, smiling
© Olga Mitterfellner 55
child does not quite come across. On the right is an ad by the label Oppiofashion which I chose as a comparison. Here
is a teen (or young adult) in a similar outfit and pose, but now it makes more sense.
Image 16: Dior, 2003 Image 17: Oppiofashion 2000
© Olga Mitterfellner 56
The second example is an image from the Dolce and Gabbana website which has a section with childrens’ fashion,
called D & G Junior. As I was clicking through the images I was struck by one in particular, as it seemed to suggest adult
material.
Image 18: www.dolcegabbana.it Image 19: Giorgio Armani, 10 Magazine, 04-2004.
The Dolce & Gabbana girl is standing in the mirrored pose of the adult woman in the Giorgio Armani advert. They both
have a short or sleek hairstyle and an exposed back.
© Olga Mitterfellner 57
The design of the dress in the left is very exposing and its
sexual nature becomes evident in the Armani advert, which
features a very similar dress deign with straps on the back.
And finally, to sharpen the point that children are robbed of
their childhood through fashion adverts, here is another
Dolce and Gabbana image: It is an ad campaign taken
from British Vogue in April 2004 (Image 20). At first glance
there are three happy children, and one possibly bored
child, of different ages, dressed in kid’s clothes. At a second
and more detailed glance, some discrepancies are
revealed. For example, the little blonde girl with the yellow
shirt is wearing black nail varnish on her fingers and toes.
Images 20: D&G Junior, Vogue April, 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 58
The little boy on the left has his shirt buttoned open in a macho style which is really not
common for children, and the girl sitting next to him, who is also the
oldest of all four, is wearing a top which is zipped open to reveal the
chest area.
It seems like she has a bra on underneath the top and is possibly
starting puberty and hence has some breasts, although judging from her face she has a very
childish look and does not show those signs of “sexual maturity” that would be appropriate for
showing off the chest. I have to agree with Lynn Smith’s argument that through such adverts as
these children are catapulted into an adult life before they are ready for it, mentally or physically.
Moreover I believe that this speeded-up growth can cause big psychological problems in the
child’s life, all the way through to adulthood. However, I find that there are not enough studies
conducted on the actual effects of modern marketing and advertising on children, so that it remains difficult to pinpoint
© Olga Mitterfellner 59
what exact malformations a child’s psychology endures as a consequence. Perhaps the lack of evidence is due to the
tactics of advertising itself, which always stays a step ahead of us, bringing out new campaigns with new repercussions
which can only be examined in retrospect.
One leading intellectual in the study of the effect of advertising on women and children is American author Jean
Kilbourne. She believes that advertising constructs an unhealthy relationship with the female consumer through the
product it is selling and thus creates an addictive mindset which is ultimately self-destructive for the consumer. In her
book “Can’t buy my love” Kilbourne talks about sexist violence against women and young girls. The “increasing
sexualization of children, especially girls” in advertising has become “disturbing as hints of violence enter the picture”.
(Kilbourne, 1999: pp281, 282). This violence becomes socially accepted as we see such adverts on a daily basis. The
moment images of sexualised children, such as the ones mentioned above, seep into our subconscious “sexual
harassment [becomes] normal and ordinary.” (Kilbourne, 1999: p286).
Another scary effect of market-targeting children is that already they are mini-consumers who are pre-programmed to
grow up to be even stronger ones than adults are at the present time. They are taught what brands to buy and who to
aspire to as soon as they gain awareness of the world and maybe even before they learn to talk or walk. If the children
are not dressed in luxury labels then it often is a cheaper but popular brand which comes with its own strong ad
campaigns, such as Baby Gap for example. Children also learn that they have to compete with baby peers in day-care
© Olga Mitterfellner 60
or kindergarten when it comes to their appearance. In the U.S. there is already a commercial TV programme called
Channel One being broadcasted into schools with “commercial advertising” which allows “corporate infiltrations” into
children’s minds. (Rogers, 1999: 73)
“Brand Child” is another marketing tool, published by the research company Millward Brown. It reveals tips for marketing
to kids who in their own words are “likely to represent the future global consumer population.” These children are also
“those that the marketing world would consider desirable targets for new products and services now, or in the future.”
(Brand Child: millwardbrown.com/kidspeak/BRANDchild/research.asp)
Under such circumstances it becomes a normal social phenomenon for children to learn to consume at an early age
and do it at least as much as their parents, if not more. While working in the Liberty’s Beauty Hall in London in 2003, my
position was at the counter next to Stila cosmetics. This make-up brand, which was developed without any special
products for children, had an incredible amount of young visitors. I observed numerous occasions when mothers in their
thirties to early forties would walk in with their pre-pubescent daughters who were made-up ten times more than their
moms. Most of the mothers were not wearing any make-up at all, yet the girls had foundation, eye-shadow, rouge and
lipstick or lip gloss on, and had clearly come back to get some more. What was more surprising than the made-up
children, were the reactions of their parents: the moms (and sometimes dads) did not seem to utter one word of
annoyance or restriction to their daughters, but instead followed the girls’ instructions and paid for the desired items,
© Olga Mitterfellner 61
such as another lip-gloss or eye-shadow. I had to reflect on my own childhood, and asked friends and colleagues who
are all in their 20s, about wearing make-up when they were young. It turned out that there is a tremendous generation
shift. We were all strictly not allowed to wear any kind of make-up until we were 18, and sometimes used lip-gloss
secretly from the age of 16. All the children featured in the adverts however shown in this chapter however, are all
wearing make-up. They are the role models that other kids aspire to and try to imitate, rendering the parents helpless I
assume. Today it is hard to imagine how parents could forbid their 16-year-olds to wear make-up like my parents did
(and now the age has dropped to 12 or younger), with the purpose to protect them from the effects of early
sexualization and its consequences. And if the parents cannot protect their own children anymore, their pre-pubescent
daughters who make themselves sexually attractive before they are physically even ready to have sex, then advertising
has won! The caring and protecting as well as nurturing aspect of being a parent, perhaps even the whole point of
parenthood, is made irrelevant. Through advertising the role of the parent is redefined in a sickening way: You are a
good parent if you cater to the purchasing desires of your child. You pay for your child’s product wishes, no matter how
disturbing the implications might be, and you receive gratification and thankfulness from your offspring. If you object
then you might have the child throw a tantrum, rebel or cause it to be a social outcast if it differs from the mass of
consumed children. After all, peer-pressure is what advertisers rely on when they market to kids, because it guarantees
the sale. The desire for beauty can be quickly turned into a competitive obsession in young girls and it is present even in
the youngest children, as the next chapter reveals.
© Olga Mitterfellner 62
Chapter 7 - American Dream or how a dream can really be a nightmare.
Where do the children get their inspiration from to use make-up and present themselves all “dolled-up” to the world?
Undoubtedly it is the influence of the media, but it is
also the toys that little girls play with that forms them
into steadfast and growing consumers with more
purchasing power as they get older and more
independent. And perhaps the idea of a consuming,
beautified youth comes from the continent where
dreams have known to be manufactured.
“Dreams have to start somewhere” – these are the
words of Dorothy, the mom of a little girl who attends
beauty pageants in America and hopes to be Miss
America one day. She is only one of an estimated
100,000 children who are shown off in beauty pageants Image 21: Lovegrove, 2002:68
yearly and who are all under twelve years old. (Damhorst, 1999: pp 294, 295)
© Olga Mitterfellner 63
According to William Pinsof, who is a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at the Northwestern
University “being a little Barbie doll” can have its downsides: “[..] your body has to be a certain way and your hair has to
be a certain way.
In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders
and all kinds of body distortions in terms of body image.” (Damhorst, 1999: 294)
Being a Barbie doll seems to have most dangerous implications on young girls while their childhood, those few beautiful
and valuable years, are being ruthlessly commercialised by big and powerful corporations like Mattel. This is also the
opinion of Mary F. Rogers (1999: p72) who describes the success of Mattel. The corporation realized a long time ago,
that it is in the human nature to want to collect (usually trinkets) and that Barbie offers that and more. She builds up a
virtual world in which she is a queen and can have all the luxuries of a materialistic life, if she only gets all the accessories
purchased by her owner. It is very true, that Barbie is nothing without her many outfits and commodities like houses,
yachts, cars, friends and boyfriend(s). She is the “American Dream”, I believe, put into a vulgar plastic shape, and
marketed to children who are thought to aspire to live just like that, by training with a doll.
In the on-line edition of Pravda, the Russian newspaper, a single-parent father writes about his feelings concerning the
American Dream. Being a Russian émigré, the author lives in the U.S.A. and is raising his high-school-aged daughter
alone. His article is entitled “I dream of leaving the USA for Russia” because he no longer wants to live in a county which
© Olga Mitterfellner 64
“the whole world hates” and is ashamed to be called an American and so is pleading to Russia’s President Putin to let
him come back.
The political moves of America across the entire world, the author stresses, are all based on the need for natural
resources and not on democracy; the war in Iraq is fought for oil.
He is also ashamed of how “American corporations have begun to abuse people of other countries as slave labourers”
for the sake of their financial gain and calls the U.S.A. “America the land of the greed and the home of the corporate
liars”. “Bush told Americans that to help after 9-11 what we need to do is go shopping”, he writes and criticises a country
where the “value as citizens is directly related to [their] consumer spending levels not [their] abilities.” To the author U.S.
“democracy is a bad joke and the “American Dream is truly a nightmare.” (Pravda.Ru,
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/386/12647_USA.html )
But this is not the only reader with an anti-American opinion who has sent his letter to the editor. Many more have
commented on the topic, especially in respect to America’s presence in Iraq, including a Brit who says that
The world would be a much safer place if America didn’t try to act like a bully bossing the world around, they only
go into countries when they have something to gain from it. (Pravda.Ru,
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/395/12675_USA.html)
© Olga Mitterfellner 65
Thus it appears that the American Dream is an unwanted lie and does not represent the human values which people
seek around the world, outside of the U.S.A. Fulfilling the prophecies of the dream might lead people into despair,
rather than happiness, and is certainly not healthy for children. Playing with a harmless toy, such as the Barbie doll, can
suddenly become the epitome of this nightmare that the Russian father has described and gives power to those
intrusive corporations who are bullying the world around through smart marketing techniques. However, to better
understand the implications of the Barbie doll on today’s and tomorrow’s youth it is important to look at her origins and
some of the facts that surround her image, the dream she is selling.
© Olga Mitterfellner 66
Chapter 8 - Barbie: Origins, Influence, Racism or why the uncovered and dissected doll is not so
pretty.
The doll which easily might stand for all that is evil due to her wide-ranging influence on
little girls and women on a global scale, originates from post WWII Germany.
She first appeared as pulp fiction in the form of a comic strip in a newspaper called “Bild
Zeitung” in 1952. (See Image 22) Her name was not Barbie but “Lilli”, referred to as “Bild
Lilli”, and was not for children but for adults, specifically for men. Her character was a
“sensual, headstrong, attractive girl appealing to German men.” (Collectorsworld )
By 1955 a 3-D toy version of Bild Lilli was available to men in tobacco stores and “adult
oriented” shops. (See images 22) It was certainly a doll comparable to a male sex-toy,
because she had the physical forms of an adult with large breasts, small waist and Image 22: Bild Lilli Cartoon, 1950s.
what some might call a provocative look. (Dolls and Toys Australia)
Today a surviving Bild Lilli doll retails at about US$ 5500 to US$ 6000.
© Olga Mitterfellner 67
Images 23: Collectorsworld
© Olga Mitterfellner 68
The actual Barbie doll first emerged in the USA around 1959, and in the early 60 the following doll came on the market.
(See image 23)
This vintage Barbie looks very much like Germany’s original toy for men and it is no
coincidence, as the rights for Bild Lilli were bought up by Mattel.
However, Mattel’s own version of the story is that Barbie was developed by “Ruth
Handler, Mattel co-founder, [who] had watched her young daughter Barbara playing
teenage or adult make-believe with paper dolls, imagining them in grownup roles”
and then named the doll after the daughter.
(Barbie Through The Years, 29.01.2004).
Image 24: Barbie Through the Years.
Although the creator of Barbie died in 2002, her wicked spell has not ceased from casting a shadow over the world. The
Barbie doll has kept her well-established popularity over 40 years, and more than one billion Barbies have been sold in
over 150 countries establishing a $ 2.5 billion-a-year strong industry. (Steiner, 2002)
© Olga Mitterfellner 69
Kathleen Grassel writes in her article “Barbie Around the World. How Yankee had to go home but Barbie got to stay”:
Around the world she became an icon aspired to by both mothers and their daughters; mothers and daughters
who, no matter what size, shape, color, language or culture, identified desperately with the rich, blonde Barbie
from that rich, blonde country. With their purchasing power they voted against their own perceived repulsive
shapes, clolors, and cultural identity. Barbie the bimbo, Barbie the liberated woman, it didn’t matter. Barbie found
herself in the bizarre position of defining culture. (Grassel, 1999: par 3)
This doll was a powerful force that contributed and possibly pioneered the unrealistic beauty standards that women try
to live up to from the second half or the 20th century until today. But it is more so the children who have been influenced
by the toy and who learn to grow up with what I believe are false ambitions.
Judy Attfield writes in her essay on Barbie and Action Man that Barbie has often been associated with a sexist doll and
was never intended to be a toy for children since her adult body shape and initial cartoon personality “is that of a
stereotypical male fantasy”. (Kirkham, 1996: p 83)
(In my eyes this sex-based unsuitability overrides all positive things that can be said about Barbie, such as that she
represents women in different professional roles and different races.)
Attfield also stresses that:
There is enough evidence to suggest that much could be learnt were we to study how children subvert the ready-
made meanings inserted into toys by manufacturers. (Kirkham, 1996: p86)
© Olga Mitterfellner 70
It is perhaps true that advertising and the entire psychology that is sold together with the toy plays a big role in its
popularity amongst children. How would a child react to the doll if all the media around it was taken away?
If I think back to my childhood in Russia, I remember the incident I had with Barbie dolls in the early 1980s. As we had no
such toys in the country, no advertising of children’s toys and no special market for them, it was a shock to me when I
received three Barbies as a gift from a western family friend at the age of four. They seemed awkward to me and
repulsive, especially their stiff and provocative smiles and adult bodies. I immediately undressed them and tore their
heads off. I also examined their tiny hands and chewed on them. The dolls had bendy legs with special joints in them,
and it gave me great pleasure when I discovered the manufacturer’s mistake: The legs could be bent backwards, in
the wrong direction! Of course I bent all their legs in the wrong direction, and - finally satisfied - threw them in the corner,
only to never play with them again. (I must say that I was not as “evil” to my other toys and enjoyed playing “mother-
and-child” with my baby dolls.)
Meanwhile about 10 years later and in the western hemisphere of the world “the typical American girl between the
ages of three and ten […] owns an average of eight Barbie dolls.” (Mattel Inc.,1994) And their concerned parents try to
make sense of the impact of Barbie by attending college classes. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers a
course dedicated to better understanding children and features a website where students debate about topics which
were discussed in lectures:
© Olga Mitterfellner 71
“Does Barbie reinforce overfeminized gender roles (women as trendy shoppers, appearance obsessed, etc) or does it
reconcile the ability to both maintain a glamour role and be successful achievers (i.e. Palaeontologist Barbie)? “
and “How much does Mattel actually influence women’s movements with Barbie? […] There are people who see
Barbie as emphasizing the woman stereotype, or the stereotype of [a] white person’s definition of beauty […]”
(Children’s Culture, 08.10.2003: par16, 18)
Over 40 individuals who had posted such and similar questions on-line were intrigued by the power of Barbie but had no
propositions for an answer.
There are many examples of Barbie’s sphere of influence on children and reinforcement of the obsession with
appearance and a white, female stereotype that Kathleen Grassel mentions.
One example is a British version of the “Barbie Fact File” which is a folder with collectible inserts that teaches girls about
life through the wisdom of Barbie. This is a powerful tool, as it attempts to educate little girls and prepares them to grow
up and perceive the world in a very narrow-minded way, with special attention to high-calorie foods and stereotypical
understanding of beauty and appearance. (It is also important to remember that children are easily influenced, more
so than adults, but that these influences form them into the adults they will become.)
© Olga Mitterfellner 72
In the section called “travel with Barbie”, the doll goes
to the USA and talks about food. She says that one of
her favourite meals, a hamburger with chips (the
equivalent of French fries in the U.K.) and a big glass of
coca cola is not something she would eat on a daily
basis as it is “not a very light meal.” (See image 24)
This can be deciphered in a positive and a negative
way. The first would mean that Barbie’s advice is good
as she cares about the well-being of young girls.
Image 25: Barbie Fact File, Atlas Editions, 1999. D1-741-03-07.
The second is that she rejects the all-American fast-food lifestyle and immediately gives young girls body consciousness
by raising awareness of fattening foods. Young girls might be encouraged to transfer this idea to other various foods
which are not as unhealthy as the hamburger, chips and fries. It has to be taken into account that Barbie herself is a
very slim role model and has an unnatural body shape, so it is very likely for young Barbie-loving girls to aspire to such a
slim figure and to start worrying about the calories of foods – both healthy and unhealthy ones. The initial “feast for
© Olga Mitterfellner 73
hungry little Americans” is not so much of a feast anymore, if they have to consider the calorie intake with every bite
they take out of that burger. Most likely a feeling of guilt is created in association with the meal.
Barbie does not fail at offering a solution to the calorie-heavy concern in another section of the Fact File named
“Barbie’s Kitchen”. There she explains how to make a salad, stating that “salads are Barbie’s favourite summertime
snacks – they’re so refreshing and healthy!” (Fact File, 1999) Does that suggest all little girls should eat salad instead of
hamburgers – all summer long?
The Fact File offers more wisdom: There is a page dedicated to white teeth that give you a “dazzling smile”, or making a
dress to play the perfect wedding day; there is a career report on supermodels who’s job demands “good humour,
patience and bags of energy”. And yet another chapter devoted to beauty, will help you “learn to make your hair
bright and shiny, like Barbie”, and gives guidance to “my first make-up session” where “Barbie shows you how to put on
make-up step-by-step” or how to have “lovely hands and pearly nails”.
Interestingly enough, all the Barbies, people and children featured on the beauty pages are white and there are only
four pictures of children from any other ethnic background in the entire, 100-page thick file.
© Olga Mitterfellner 74
In the section named “Barbie and Friends” she meets her “African friends” who seem to be tribal people with extreme
body ornamentations. One picture shows a black and white girl hugging (similarly dressed) with the comment that “she”
(the black girl) “is just like you” because she also “goes to school, has lots of friends, and loves having fun and laughing”.
Ambiguously it continues that although “she was born in Africa” she now lives in France but “some of her relatives still
live in Africa.” First of all there is no reference to any civilized countries and cities within the African continent, nor is there
any mention of the numerous nationalities that co-exist in Africa. Although the African tribes are an important part of
African heritage, the way this information is presented it seems rather biased and narrow-minded, if not racist,
stereotyping Africans. A child who is maybe British and has not been educated about Africa, and who has not travelled
there will (arguably) believe that in Africa there are only tribal people with very dark skin. The fact file states further that
“people in Africa tell their children wonderful stories to teach them about the history of their tribe.”
Why does the French-African girl have to live in Europe to be “just like you”? Her relatives who “still live in Africa” will
immediately be associated with tribal people, according to the layout of the Fact File page and the given visual
material that you can see in picture 25:
© Olga Mitterfellner 75
Image 26: Barbie Fact file, Atlas Editions, 1999. D1-741-04-07.
Before the civil rights movement in the 1960, it was common in the U.S. to show African Americans and other ethnic
minorities in a demeaning and stereotypical way, like “Aunt Jemima” for example, as a tool of social control. White
consumers were supposed to be reassured “that an ideology of racial hierarchy was ‘natural’” (Cortese, 1999:77)
© Olga Mitterfellner 76
Image 27: http://www.aunt-jemima.com/tradition/difference.htm
Aunt Jemima is the over 100-year-old American pancake syrup and mix brand which features
a black woman on the package front and dates back to times of American segregation.
Bridget R. Cooks essay on Betye Saar’s “The Liberation of Aunt Jemima” (1971) explains the meaning of the black icon:
A version of the fictional character [is] created as a justification for Black slavery in the
United States, Aunt Jemima exhibits these general characteristics as the head female house slave: she is obese,
eager to serve, made to order, and personable. Like her very existence, her every desire answers the needs of her
White owners. She was created as an image of contentment and completion in the state of slavery. What is not
fictional about the mammy character is that she was loosely based on real women who were house slaves.
Indeed, there were slave women who managed the masters' family houses and nursed their children. However,
the historical accounts of these women's lives are denied and discredited through the fictional image of the
smiling mammy who enjoys her responsibilities and loves the family that exploits her. (Cooks, 1995: p1)
Still the question remains, as to which extent Barbie is influencing children world-wide and whether she is creating a new
breed of kids with biased opinions on race and gender stereotypes.
© Olga Mitterfellner 77
It is only since 1980 that Mattel has offered a black doll called Barbie amongst its merchandise. Before that there were
Barbie’s black cousins (1967) with different names. (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8788/afrbarb.html)
In 1995 Mattel was producing 60% white dolls and 40% black dolls, which was an increase to the year before where
staggering 90% of all produced Barbies were white. (Langie, 1995) Almost ten years later there is still no evidence of
racial equality on the toy store shelves:
Why is the majority of fairy-tale dolls a white Barbie representing Rapunzel, the Nutcracker or Sleeping Beauty? And how
come the “Happy Family” series is available only in white with in the U.K.? Why not promote a mixed-race Barbie family
to children, since in Britain, for example, “the other parent of four in ten children with a Caribbean mother or father is
white”? (Insight UK) As one adult collector puts it “You don’t see black Barbie on the clothing packages [or] on the doll-
house box or the box with the car on it.” (Langie, 1995) After all, Britain is Mattel’s second biggest market after the U.S.
and should have the same choice of ethnic dolls. However, even with the offers of Afro-American dolls within the U.S.
the white image dominates as a preference amongst children and adults.
Those were the findings of one American family who carried out simple research which revealed racism: In 2001 a father
helped his daughter conduct an experiment on the racial preference of Barbie dolls. The interviewed women and
children had to state their preference between a black or white doll which was dressed in the same princess attire. They
mostly chose the white one. Consequently, upon presentation, the daughter’s results were banned from class. (Thielen,
2001)
© Olga Mitterfellner 78
Interestingly enough, this was not the first time such a study was conducted. As early as 1940 the black psychologists
Kenneth and Mamie Clark researched the negative effects racism and segregation on black children. Their test was
very similar: Black children had the choice between a white and a black doll. Almost a staggering 70% of the black
children opted for the white doll. These results demonstrated the negative self-concept in black children.
(Mcdonough1999: pp129, 130)
Mattel took this information into account, later on in the1990s, around the time when the corporation was marketing
black Barbie dolls. They summoned their own psychology experts - the Hopson couple - who repeated the same study
as the Clarks. Once again, and more than 50 years later, the results had hardly changed: 65% of the black children
chose the white doll. The Hopsons reported that 76% of the interviewed kids “said that the doll looked ‘bad’ to them”
and that there was one clear message that the children were constantly sending: “We’re not as good, as pretty, or as
nice as Whites…We don’t like being Black. We wish we could be like them.” (McDonough, 1999: p130)
This evidence is appalling. Not only does racism exist amongst Whites, but it is self-inflicted upon Blacks from early
childhood on through the Barbie doll. It is too sad of a though for me to believe that it is alright to let the next generation
of people to grow up with racist values and ideals based not on education, literature, art or human virtue, but on a
piece of well-accessorized plastic with boobs. Corporations might have power over us at times, but we have the right to
fight back and arguably it is even our duty to do so.
© Olga Mitterfellner 79
It is not only my opinion though, which is enlightening, that targeting children for marketing is wrong and that they need
to be protected from it. In Sweden, for example, the law forbids all TV advertising aimed at children under 12.
[It] is overwhelmingly popular among the public and politicians. (In the United States, children watching three
hours of TV a day - the norm - see about 25,000 spots a year. Any attempt to restrict them would be challenged
under First Amendment guarantees of free speech.) […] In Norway, Austria, and the Flemish part of Belgium no
advertising is allowed around children's programs; toy ads are banned on Greek TV, while Italy, Poland, Denmark,
and Latvia are studying plans for tighter regulations. (Ford, 1999)
At the present time and under the given circumstances, it is difficult to imagine a world where marketing to children is
forbidden by law everywhere, just like it is in those forward-thinking countries mentioned above. But it is certainly a goal
to strive to in the hope of protecting our children, and all children, so that they don’t grow up hating each other and
themselves.
© Olga Mitterfellner 80
Chapter 9 - Other Forces or how some attempts are made to divert us from our consumer binge.
There are some forces and applications of design that try to
counteract the mass hypnosis produced by widely circulating
fashion magazines, advertising and distribution of brands by
fashion conglomerates. Some attempts are more humorous, some
sarcastic or subjective, even political.
Their effect remains limited because this type of media is only
obtainable in small quantities or in very limited locations.
The British anti-fashion magazine “Cheap Date” for example
promotes the use of vintage clothes and features mock adverts
which challenge famous fashion labels such as Cartier, Burberry
and Calvin Klein. The adverts also try to encourage to shop at
second-hand stores such as the Salvation Army, Cancer Research Image 28: Cheap Date, cover front, S/S 2004.
and others or to simply borrow some clothes from your relatives.
© Olga Mitterfellner 81
Image 29: Cheap Date, S/S 2004. Image 30: Cheap Date, S/S 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 82
Cheap Date also promotes a global fashion strike scheduled to
take place from May 14 – 28, 2004 and offers the alternative of
just wearing sheet which will make you “look bad, feel good”.
(Cheap Date, S/S 2004: p 33)
The publication is successful at getting models to pose for
unconventional and funny shoots for them and receives
sponsorship from fashion labels. However, this less glossy and
more cunning 84-page print costs £5.00 per issue and is more
costly and of course less glamorous than its competitors like Elle,
Vogue and Cosmo.
Image 31: Cheap Date, S/S 2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 83
Then there is the Canadian-based Adbusters organization which - in the founders’ own words - is:
a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to
advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our
aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century.
(http://adbusters.org/information/foundation/)
Adbusters is also responsible for producing some provocative Anti-adverts such as these, but whether these ad-
campaigns are enough to provoke more awareness in shoppers, and whether they are able to change consumer
behaviour is questionable.
© Olga Mitterfellner 84
Image 32: www.adbusters.org Image 33: www.adbusters.org
© Olga Mitterfellner 85
Other creative challenges of conventional fashion items are the Payne and Ink. greeting cards which make fun of the
60s and 70s magazines. Bringing back the past interests of female fashion magazine readers to today and ridiculing it
can possibly provoke a comparison to today noticing how fads and fashions are a phenomenon of the time period you
live in and that they are often blindly followed making no sense at all if put out of the context of the time frame. The
card entitled “Vague” for example is a take on Vogue and features two retro ladies who are fanatical fans of knitwear.
© Olga Mitterfellner 86
Image 34: Mag Hag. Payne and Ink. card. Image 35: Mag Hag. Payne and Ink. card
© Olga Mitterfellner 87
The exploitation of the individual thorough aggressive marketing
has also been the subject in the work of conceptual artist Cindy
Sherman. The American-born photographer - often called the
“master of disguises” - challenges our understanding of the
photographically documented world. She uses herself as the
subject of the pictures, representing different women in our
society.
Image 36: Cindy Sherman, Untitled 1992
© Olga Mitterfellner 88
And lets not forget Barbara Kruger, famous for having epitomized the meaning of our consumer society in her artistic
work with “I shop therefore I am”, taken and subverted from Descartes’’ famous words “I think therefore I am”. “Business
as usual” is referring to aggressive and predatory tactics of conducting business, whereas “Worth every penny” screams
on behalf of animals subjected to painful testing and laboratory use for our
products, such as cosmetics.
Images 37, 38 and 39: Barbara Kruger, http://art.bgsu.edu/~deber/kruger.html
© Olga Mitterfellner 89
Conclusion: Consume/d less
What my research into the subject of consumption has revealed is that the female consumer is being so to speak
consumed, mostly by global multinational corporations. She likes to shop, likes to try new products and doesn’t mind
buying them for her children, but she has no idea of the extent of research that goes into predicting and manipulating
her consumer behaviour. It is hence equally important to ask whether the female consumer is being consumed, and
also by whom her decisions are being influenced.
There is nothing wrong with shopping as such and clothes, shoes, or creams if they are based on good principles. But of
course they are not, because the only value driving the vast offer of goods is greed. I am not scared to say it frankly,
although many people might criticize my opinion. I believe that personal greed, a nasty human heritage of biblical age
is responsible for aggressive advertising, mean marketing and consumer deception.
When corporations try to justify their actions by saying that they provide goods based on the interplay of supply and
demand, they are simply lying. There is no need to supply false promises or overpriced hope even though the consumer
might want those unrealistic things. No company can provide beauty, eternal youth, or social status but they can
sweet-talk us into believing that the unobtainable is actually available here on earth – in fact just a few yards down the
street, in the next best store. Well, none of that is true and it is about time that people realized that. Women around the
world, but especially in the Western hemisphere of the planet (they have been subjected to deceptive marketing for a
© Olga Mitterfellner 90
longer and more profound period of time) need to see what really stands behind all the bright adverts that they see on
a daily basis, in uncountable quantities. Unfortunately governments, in the interest of market profitability, do not support
the release of truth to the public in any way. It is up to extreme organizations like Adbusters or Greenpeace and
individual artists or authors to shout out to us what is really happening in the world. They often have to turn to the same
methodologies as the big corporations and use the same language of adverts etc, because this is the only thing that
people respond to nowadays. Hence I chose to find a recognizable consumer commodity – an internet shopping site -
to apply my theory to and turn it into an anti-consumerist device.
The internet is a modern commodity and also a contemporary danger zone. Virtual market places such as Amzon.com,
Ebay.com, Eluxury.com and any other dotcom business offers a range of products just a mouse-click away and most
retailers will try to offer clients a web store. The enhanced risk here is that we pay by credit card and not real cash,
which can make us get carried away much easier than when physically touching the money we’d pay with in a real
store.
According to Dr G. B. Davies, researcher at Trinity Hall, Cambridge University “customers using credit cards spend more
than those paying by cash or cheques” in similar spending scenarios. ("" "") One of the reasons for this is that it is
psychologically far easier to add a small amount of cash to an already growing credit card bill than to spend that small
amount of cash on its own. (Davies, 2004)
© Olga Mitterfellner 91
In respect of over expenditure on the internet it is interesting to observe the typical on-line shopping experience and
then attempt to change it in order to follow the principal of making consumers less the ill victim of marketing
manipulation and more of a conscious, psychologically healthy world citizen. Ordinarily, a website such as Eluxury.com
lets you browse high-fashion goods, and then add them to a virtual shopping basket where the products accumulate.
You then have the option to review your items in the shopping basket area and decide which ones you keep and
which ones you don’t want to buy. Finally the payment is made via your credit card and the products are on their way.
Your credit card details are usually stored in the on-line database to facilitate even easier purchasing in the (near)
future.
The Quarantine.me.uk website concept offers a different type of on-line shopping experience based on the subversion
of regular shopping sites. Here you also have a selection of over priced luxury fashion items that can be collected in a
virtual shopping basket. The contents can be reviewed in the checkout process, but with the following twist: as the
name of the site predicts, the items are being quarantined.
According to the encyclopaedia, quarantine means the “isolation of persons, animals, places, and effects that carry or
are suspected of harbouring communicable disease. The term originally referred to the 40 days of offshore wait during
which incoming vessels could not discharge passengers or cargo in the era when […] great epidemics swept across
© Olga Mitterfellner 92
Europe. The practice has been changed by developments in medical science. Usually the word of the ship's officer that
the passengers are free of disease and presentation by the passengers of certificates of inoculation against certain
diseases are now sufficient to permit passage of travellers from one country to another.”
Quarantine regulations still exist in some countries, like the U.K., for the import of cattle and household pets (even plant
life) coming from another country. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2004).
Hence shopping is being looked at as a “communicable disease” and for safety reasons the selected goods must be
put into quarantine before the individual can purchase them and have them shipped. The quarantine area itself
presents an interactive challenge to the consumer as she has to revisit the items and check on them. She has to confirm
that she definitely wants them by clicking on them and if she fails to do so the item will be deleted automatically from
the list. If she chooses to keep the item, annoying phrases pop up saying things like “Stupid girl, always shopping!” or
“One more thing and your closet will explode.” This interferes with the pleasant shopping experience and encourages
thinking about whether there is a real necessity of the purchase. If, however, the consumer decides to get rid of an item
a phrase of praise will pop up – “See how easy that was?”-, thus making the choice to shop less a more rewarding
experience than to shop more.
© Olga Mitterfellner 93
The Quarantine.me.uk site has other obvious as well as hidden functions which are designed to subvert the common on-
line shopping experience. For example, the search button on the main site is simply a mock button. When you type in a
name of a brand or search word and press “go” the search field converts your typed word into a long row of dollar
signs. Additionally the site features a soundtrack taken from the song by Garbage called “Stupid Girl”, which plays
continuously and can’t be turned off, unlike on regular sites where the visitor is in some control of the music. The actual
lurics never appear, but those who know the song immediately recognize the message. Those who don’t are stuck with
a continuous song which can’t be turned off by clicking on the volume icon. If you click it you get a rude pop-up stating
that the volume can’t be turned down.
The home page of the site also features thought provoking images, taken from magazines which are against mad
consumerism and my original photographs. On the left-hand side is a selection of links mixing top-end luxury brands like
Gucci and Dune Shopping (offering Italian handbags and accessories) which offer on-line retail and several anti-
consumerist activists such as Noam Chomsky, Cheapdate Magazine and Adbusters. It is up to the consumer to choose
which one to look at and, presuming that not everyone knows about the activists, one has a good chance of finally
coming in contact with their work by clicking the Quarantine.me.uk links for fun.
The choice to shop more or less is purposely left to the individual, but of course the latter (shopping less) is greatly
encouraged as a counterweight to all other on-line retail sites where manipulation leads us to shopping more.
© Olga Mitterfellner 94
It is assumed that some of the shoppers visiting the Quarantine site will at the least feel entertained and at the most
begin to reflect upon their purchase behaviour, perhaps even change the typical patterns. The site also intends to
teach selectiveness to the consumer and critical evaluation when shopping. If the instant gratification of getting the
product is slowed down then a compulsive action might come to a halt and you might have a chance to think it over
once more. The difficulty of obtaining the items is a necessary precaution, like in the original concept of quarantine: If
something is contagious and might spread disease amongst many, whether it is a virus that attacks the body or the
psychological disease of shopping too much, it needs to be held away from society to prevent an epidemic. Being
consumed is the epidemic of our modern times and can be controlled by giving back to the consumer his and her
rights of truly free choice. Our decisions of whether we want something or not are not purely ours any longer and so they
have to become ours again.
If we are manipulated into buying more on-line (because of credit cards and other tools) then maybe we can be
manipulated out of it again. Quarantine is a conscious manipulation of the consumer, but like in its original sense, it
serves the greater good of preventing huge and widespread damage.
The book “Propaganda and the Public Mind”, documents interviews with the renowned American professor Noam
Chomsky. Chomsky is a remarkable personality who writes and lectures around the world in order to educate people on
international affairs, politics and human rights.
© Olga Mitterfellner 95
In this particular book he is asked to clarify why he has quoted a specific passage in his book “Necessary Illusions”.
The passage is from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov and this is the explanation of Noam Chomsky:
That’s a particularly striking passage. [Dostoyevsky] is talking about manufacture of consent. It’s a very dramatic
and accurate presentation of the way mystery, ceremony, fear, and even joy are manipulated so as to make
people feel that they must be subordinate to others. It’s a denunciation of Christ, because Christ was trying to
give people freedom from these constraints. Christ didn’t understand that this was what people wanted. They
need to be subordinated to mystery and magic and control. So Christ is really a criminal. That’s the burden of the
argument. (Barsamian, 2001: p3)
What Noam Chomsky, Dostoyevsky and even Christ have noticed is very important: People like to have constraints and
like a certain type of authority over them. They seek manipulation simply because it is human nature and they will not
consciously chose freedom if it is offered to them. If so, then Quarantine is perhaps able to offer a sort of constraint to
the consumer within which she can find a way out, a way to be free. www.quarantine.me.uk.
“Free flowing capital will undermine democracy consequently.” (Noam Chomsky, 2000)
© Olga Mitterfellner 96
References
Adbusters, www.adbusters.org, 12-04-2004.
Arnold, Rebecca, 2001. “Fashion , Desire and Anxiety. Image and Morality in the 20
th Century” Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
Ashworth, Anne, 5 April 2004. “A City Woman’s Right To Choos”. The Times, p 10-11.
Aunt Jemima. www.auntejemima.com, 05-05-2004.
Baby Dior, 2003. www.dior.com
“Barbie Fact File.” 1999. Atlas Editions, UK.
Barbie Science Fair Project. http://www.thielen.com/barbie/experiment.htm, 20-03-2004.
Barbie Through the Years. http://web.info-galaxy.com/Barbie/Through_the_Years/through_the_years.html, 29.01.2004
http://www.barbiecollectibles.com/collecting/barbiehistory/flash.asp, 29-01-2004
Barsamian, David and Noam Chomsky, 2001. “Propaganda and the Public Mind. Conversations with Noam Chomsky.” Pluto Press, London.
“Because You’re Worth It: 100 Years of Make-Up.” 13-02-2002, Channel 4, directed/ produced by Pip Banyard, U.K.
Berger, Warren, 2001. “Advertising Today.” Phaidon, London.
Bernays, Edward L., 1928. “Propaganda” Horace Liveright Inc., United States.
Boeree, Dr. C. George,1998. “Personality Theories. Abraham Maslow. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html. 09.04.2004
Brand Child. millwardbrown.com/kidspeak/BRANDchild/research.asp, 22-02-2004.
Children’s Culture. http://gn.www.media.mit.edu/groups/gn/children_culture/assignment9.htm, 08.10.2003: par16, 18
Collectorsworld, www.collectorsworld.com, 27-01-2004.
“Consumer Bahavior: Decision Making”, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~sstumpf/cbdecisionmaking.html, 05-04-2004.
© Olga Mitterfellner 97
Cooks, Bridget R., 1995. “See Me Now.” Indiana University Press, http://www.sistahspace.com/backdoor/seemenow1.html, 05-05-2004.
Cortese, Anthony J., 1999. “Provocateur. Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising.” Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Chomsky, Noam, 2000. “Case Studies in Hypocrisy. U.S. Human Rights Policy.” Audio Cd, produced by David Barsamian of Alternative Radio, San
Francisco.
Chung, Chuiha Judy and Sze Tsung Leong (Editors), 2001. “The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping”. Taschen, Koeln.
Davies, Greg B. (2003). “The Realities of Spending”, Argent, 2(6), 22-28.
Dolce & Gabbana: www.dolcegabbana.it, 29-04-2004.
Dolls and Toys Australia: http://www.dollsandtoysaustralia.com/bildlilli.html, 29-01-2004
Dichter, Ernest, 1971. “Motivating Human Behavior.” McGraw-Hill, New York.
Damhorst, Mary Lynn, Kimberly A. Miller andSusan O. Michelman, 1999. “The Meanings of Dress”. Fairchild, New York.
Elle Girl, March 2004. Hachette Filipacchi, Leicestershire, U.K.
Financial Times, 21-10-2003. “Skin care, science and the secret of eternal profit.” http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/skincare.htm, 05-05-
2004.
Ford, Peter, 16-12-1999. “Europe puts mute on kid ads.” The Christian Science Publishing Society,
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/12/16/fp1s2-csm.shtml, 05-05-2004.
Grassel, Kathleen, 1999. “Barbie Around the World. How Yankee had to go home but Barbie got to stay.” New Renaissance, Vol 8, No. 4, issue
27. www.ru.org/barbie.htm
Groupe L’Oreal, http://www.loreal.com/us/index.asp, 03-04-2004.
Harcourt, www.harcourt.com, 04-04-2004.
Heathcote, Elizabeth, 29 September 2003. “Oops, I’m Bankrupt!” The Independent, Ms London.
© Olga Mitterfellner 98
HELLO! magazine, No 807. March 16, 2004.
Insight UK, April 2001. “Ethnic Diversity.” Foreign & Commonwealth Office London,
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N1684.TMPINTL/B1278664.15;sz=720x300;ord=3544733
Jessup, Michael, Spring 2001. “Truth: The First Casualty of Postmodern Consumerism.” Christian Scholar’s Review, XXX:3, 289-304)
http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/acad_dean/Jessup99_TRUTH.htm 08.12.2003
Kilbourne, Jean, 1999. “Can’t Buy My Love. How Advertising Changes The Way We Think And Feel.” Touchstone, New York.
Kirkham, Pat (Editor), 1996. “The Gendered Object.” Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Langie, C., 21 December 1995. “While white holiday Barbie sells, black doll languishes on shelves. San Diego Union Tribune, p. E3. www.cys-
ministry.org/work/block_590.asp, 02-05-2004.
Lovegrove, Keith, 2002. “Pageant: the Beauty Contest.” Laurence King, London.
Magazines.com. www.magazines.com/ncom/mag?id=2762532985974&mid=0000003795. 08.02.2004
Marble. www.marble.com, Simply the Best in Fashion Dolls:
http://www.marlbe.com/barbie.cfm?department=Vintage%20Barbie%20Dolls%201&category=Ponytails%2C%20Bild%20Lilly%2C%20%26%20Hong
%20Kong%20Lillys, 29.01.2004
Maslow, Abraham H, 1954. “Motivation and Personality.” Longman, New York.
Mattel Inc., March 14 1994. “Information Release”. www.cys-ministry.org/worrk/block_592.asp, 02-05-2004.
McDonough, Yona Zeldis (Editor), 1999. “The Barbie Chronicles. A Living Doll Turns Forty.” Touchstone, New York.
Nunley, Kevin, October 2001. “Soft Sell Marketing.” www.insiderreports.com, 31.03.2004.
Oppiofashion, 2004. Vogue Italia, Gen. 2004, N.641. Edizioni Conde Nast, Milano.
© Olga Mitterfellner 99
Pravda.Ru, (http://english.pravda.ru/), 28-04-2004. http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/386/12647_USA.html, and
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/395/12675_USA.html, 03-05-2004.
Rogers, Mary F, 1999. “Barbie Culture.” Core Cultural Icons, Sage Publications, London.
Steiner, Ina, April 29, 2002. “Barbie Doll creator Dies at 85.” http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y02/m04/i29/s02, 29.01.2004
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2004, Columbia University Press.
Thielen, “The Barbie Science Fair Project”. www.thielen.com/barbie/experiment.htm, 20-03-2004.
Twitchell, James B., 2002. “Living it Up. Our Love Affair with Luxury.” Columbia University Press, New York.
V Magazine, Spring Preview 2004, No 27.
Vogue (British), April 2004.
Weissman, Kristin Noelle, 1999. “Barbie: The Icon, The Image, The Ideal.” Universal Publishers, USA.
© Olga Mitterfellner 100
Bibliography
Arnold, Rebecca, 2001. “Fashion , Desire and Anxiety. Image and Morality in the 20th Century.” Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
Baby Dior, 2003. www.dior.com
“Barbie Fact File.” 1999. Atlas Editions, UK.
Barsamian, David and Noam Chomsky, 2001. “Propaganda and the Public Mind. Conversations with Noam Chomsky.” Pluto Press, London.
Berger, Warren, 2001. “Advertising Today.” Phaidon, London.
Bernays, Edward L., 1928. “Propaganda” Horace Liveright Inc., United States.
Boeree, Dr. C. George, 1998. “Personality Theories. Abraham Maslow. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html. 09.04.2004
Children’s Culture. http://gn.www.media.mit.edu/groups/gn/children_culture/assignment9.htm, 08.10.2003: par16, 18
Chung, Chuiha Judy and Sze Tsung Leong (Editors), 2001. “The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping”. Taschen, Koeln.
Chomsky, Noam, 2001. “Postmodern Encounters: Chomsky and Globalisation.” Icon Books Ltd, London.
Chomsky, Noam, 1989. “ Necessary Illusions. Thought Control in Democratic Societies.” Pluto Press, London.
Chomsky, Noam, 1994. “Manufacturing Consent. Noam Chomsky and the Media. An Exploration Of Dissent” Connaisseur/ Academy Video
released from ARGOS Films and the British Film Institute.
Coleridge, Nicholas, 1988. “The Fashion Conspiracy. A Remarkable Journey though the Empires of Fashion.” William Heinemann, London.
Cortese, Anthony J., 1999. “Provocateur. Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising.” Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly & Eugene Rochberg-Halton, 1981. “The meaning of Things. Domestic symbols and the self.” Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Damhorst, Mary Lynn, Kimberly A. Miller and Susan O. Michelman, 1999. “The Meanings of Dress”. Fairchild, New York.
© Olga Mitterfellner 101
Davies, Greg B. (2003). “The Realities of Spending”, Argent, 2(6), 22-28.
Dichter, Ernest, 1971. “Motivating Human Behavior.” McGraw-Hill, New York.
Elle Girl, March 2004. Hachette Filipacchi, Leicestershire, U.K.
Emboden, William A., 1992. “Sarah Bernhardt: Artist and Icon.” Severin Wunderman Museum Publications, California.
Gauntlett, David, 2002. “Media, Gender and Identity. An introduction.” Routledge, London.
Grassel, Kathleen, 1999. “Barbie Around the World. How Yankee had to go home but Barbie got to stay.” New Renaissance, Vol 8, No. 4, issue
27. www.ru.org/barbie.htm
Greenfield, Susan, 2003. “Tomorrow’s People. How 21st- Century Technology Is Changing The Way We Think And Feel.” Penguin, London.Henricks,
Mark, September 1998. “Soft Sell. The latest Dun & Bradstreet survey reveals why entrepreneurs are doing such a poor job marketing their
businesses. Think you don't have enough money--or time--to do better? Think again.”
Entrepreneur magazine, http://www.Entrepreneur.com/article/0,4621,229245,00.html.
Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky, 1994. “ Manufacturing Consent.
The Political Economy of the Mass Media.” Vintage, London.
Steiner, Ina, April 29, 2002. “Barbie Doll creator Dies at 85.” http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y02/m04/i29/s02, 29.01.2004.
Jessup, Michael, Spring 2001. “Truth: The First Casualty of Postmodern Consumerism.” Christian Scholar’s Review, XXX:3, 289-304)
http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/acad_dean/Jessup99_TRUTH.htm 08.12.2003
John, Elton and David Furnish, 2000. “Barbie. The Art of Barbie.” Vision On,
London.
Kay, John, 2003. "The Truth about Markets. Their Genius, Their Limits, Their
Follies.” Penguin, London.
© Olga Mitterfellner 102
Kernaghan, Charles, March 1998. “Made in China: Behind the Label,”
http://www.nlcnet.org/China/app/app2.htm, 06.04.2003.
Kilbourne, Jean, 1999. “Can’t Buy My Love. How Advertising Changes The Way We Think And Feel.” Touchstone, New York.
Kirkham, Pat (Editor), 1996. “The Gendered Object.” Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Klein, Naomi, 2000. “No Logo”. Flamingo, London.
Lasn, Kalle, 1999. “Culture Jam. How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge – And Why We Must.” Quill by Harper Collins, New York.
Lovegrove, Keith, 2002. “Pageant: the Beauty Contest.” Laurence King, London.
Maslow, Abraham H, 1954. “Motivation and Personality.” Longman, New York.
McDonough, Yona Zeldis (Editor), 1999. “The Barbie Chronicles. A Living Doll Turns Forty.” Touchstone, New York.
Pilger, John, 1999. “Hidden Agendas. ”Vintage, London.
Postman, Neil, 1987. “Amusing Ourselves to Death. Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.” Methuen, London.
Rogers, Mary F, 1999. “Barbie Culture.” Core Cultural Icons, Sage Publications, London.
Seabrook, John, 2000. “Nobrow. The Culture of Marketing the Marketing of Culture.” Methuen, London.
Shostrom, Everett, 1967. “ Man the Manipulator”. Abingdon press, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sparke, Penny, 1995. “As Long As It’s Pink. The Sexual Politics of Taste.” Pandora, London.
Stiglitz, Joseph, 2002.”Globalization and its Discontents.” Penguin, London.
Twitchell, James B., 2002. “Living it Up. Our Love Affair with Luxury.” Columbia University Press, New York.
Vogue Italia, Gen. 2004, N.641. Edizioni Conde Nast, Milano.
Weissman, Kristin Noelle, 1999. “Barbie: The Icon, The Image, The Ideal.” Universal Publishers, USA.
Womenswear Buyer, issue 21, London.
© Olga Mitterfellner 103
Wolf, Naomi,1991. “The Beauty Myth. How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women.” Perennial, New York.
White, Charlie, 2003. “And Jeopardize the Integrity of the Hull.” TDM, Paris.
Websites visited:
www.adbusters.org
www.barbie.com
www.dior.com
www.dolcegabbana.it
www.glamonweb.com
www.gucci.com
www.harcourt.com
www.loreal.com
www.magazines.com
http://philosophy.com
www.pravda.ru (In English: http://english.pravda.ru/)
www.wgsn.com
www.wordassociation.org
www.sketchers.com
www.collectorsworld.com, Bild Lilli 7”: http://www.collectorsworld.net/bildlilli.htm, 27.01.2004
www.worldopinion.com
www.ASOS.com (As seen on Screen)
© Olga Mitterfellner 104
Magazines Consulted:
Elle and Elle Girl
Cosmopolitan
Vogue
Marie Claire
Vanity Fair
ID
10
Harper’s Bazaar
Seventeen
Hello!
Closer
Cheap Date
Visit the interactive website www.quarantine.me.uk !
Email me if you wish to read more:
misso.mitterfellner@gmail.com
