Growing up as the daughter of a "small" business owner, I was thrust into work the moment I turned the legal working age. It might surprise a few that have known me for a long time to know that my first job wasn't a secretarial position in the office of my dad's company. My dad was a firm believer in what he called "the school of hard knocks". My first job was as a janitor and maintenance worker for his 22 service stations. My duties were to clean the restrooms, windows, mop floors, dust the interiors and paint curbs. Initially, I was appalled that my dad was having me do this. My other "day job" was as a high school student who frequently wore designer clothes to school. Cleaning a gas station bathroom? Disgusting. Not going to lie. It was one of the grossest things that I ever had to do. I still clearly remember the gas station that always smelled appallingly like dirty diapers. However, the more that I did this job, the more it struck me as to why he had me doing it. It wasn't to put me in my place or ground me in reality. It was to teach me the lesson that a clean gas station with neatly painted curbs was important for business. Whenever I was done with the whole process, I would step back and see the difference in appearance. The stations always looked so much better after the fact and consumers were more likely to buy from that which looked good.
My dad always acknowledged this in his own business. I'll never forget the time when a station supervisor, after being told to repaint a bathroom, chose to repaint it in a deep red. My dad nearly came unglued with rage, saying that it looked more like a bordello than a bathroom. The supervisor, duly scolded, repainted the bathroom to a grey tone. It took a lot of paint to cover that deep red. How something looked was more important than the cost of the additional gallons upon gallons of paint that it took to cover that red. I remember buying gas one time from a well maintained little gas station who had taken the time to fill wooden barrels with flowers. I complimented the attendant on how good the station looked and how much I liked the flowers. Turned out to be the owner of the station and he realized who I was. The compliment made him so happy because it came from me. It made him even happier when I told him that I was going to suggest his idea to my dad. He was gushing gratitude that I had noticed and liked it that much. To a 17 year old girl, it was incredibly embarrassing, but I did tell my dad about what I had seen and, ever thereafter, we had flowers at all of our stations. Despite my embarrassment, I had learned the lesson that looking good meant more business.
Unlike a lot of mom and pops back then, we had the money to do this. I'm not even sure how much money our stations generated though I worked in the office. I never bothered to find out because my dad, although a brilliant businessman, was a horrible accountant. My dad's degree was in marketing and that served him quite well for a very long time. When he and I were at a station which was backed up, we both knew that popping out of our nice cars and pumping gas in our very nice clothes would blow away customers. They absolutely loved it that we would pump their gas and clean their windshields without a care for our clothing. It showed that we cared more about them. That little appearance turned what would've been an annoyed customer into an amazed one. As my dad often said, "appearances mean everything".
What people don't realize is that this was nothing unique to my dad. Other companies did the same sort of thing. If you were branded as a retailer or switched brands, the first thing that had to be done was re-painting. When Chevron was trying to get my dad to switch brands, they offered him $4 million to do so. This included re-painting all of the stations into the "Chevron colors" and replacing signage. Every major oil retail brand has its own colors. When my dad went "un-branded" in an attempt to save his business from the big oil companies' predations, he was sued by Chevron for trademark infringement. I can tell you that the suit wasn't because the signage was similar and there's a reason why my dad ended up painting his stations purple and green. A trademark included specific colors. If he had Texaco grey up on the building and was operating as a Chevron, he would've been in big trouble. It would've been trademark infringement. Purple and green were probably the safest colors that coordinated that he could choose. In the world of business, looks are a very serious matter.
The reason is simple. People want to be in a business establishment that is clean, neat, and well designed. It makes us feel good about where we're at and maybe even who we are. You see the same thing in the shopping malls. Marble or wooden floors, expensive lighting, plants, fountains--they are all there. Looking good sells and with big retailers behind them, they have the money to out compete the mom and pops of the nation. Who wants to shop in a dress shop or book store that may be overcrowded and cluttered when they can shop in a store that is neat, decorated by an interior designer, and aesthetically pleasing? Give a consumer two options of similar pricing and service and that consumer will almost always gravitate to the one which is aesthetically pleasing. The average consumer probably doesn't ask themselves where their money is going to end up at the end of the day and who its benefiting. It could go to the salary of a major corporation's CEO instead of a small business owner in their own local community simply because of aesthetic.
With Black Friday approaching, this is something that we should try to keep in mind as we begin our Christmas shopping. The idea of checking out my own area's local mom and pop shops really appeals to me this season. It reminds me of the connection I felt whenever I pumped a customer's gas and washed their windshield. They loved meeting the person behind the business and I loved meeting them. It's a good feeling. This Christmas, I want to feel that again but, this time, it's me that is going to be the customer.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The symbol of inhumanity and a future lost
The news of the first fatality of the Occupy Movement passed today in relative silence. The deceased was not a homeless druggie who had overdosed or a a suicide, where those lives were taken by their own hands. Surely if it had been another one of those, then it would have been shouted across the nation in every paper and on every news channel and website. Not this death, no. This death is still relatively obscure in news reports. This first fatality was an unborn child.
The baby's mother was a 19 year old homeless woman, three months pregnant when she arrived at Occupy Seattle. Probably like many other homeless drawn to Occupies around the nation, she, too, came in search of food, shelter, and support. When the riot police began to arrive to evict Occupy Seattle, she tried to leave the area, telling the police that she was pregnant and needed to get out of there as any reasonable mother would feel with the threat of imminent danger. Instead of letting her pass safely through, she was instead hit with batons and kicked in the stomach as she screamed that she was pregnant and finally pepper sprayed full in the face. An ambulance took her to the hospital where things seemed like it would be okay. Five days later, she began to have sharp abdominal pains and felt sick. Like any pregnant mother would, she went to the hospital and there, the doctors performed yet another ultrasound. I know what it is like to see that bright star of a heartbeat disappear. I cannot imagine what she felt when she saw her own baby's heartbeat now gone. A victim of involuntary abortion by the hands of the Seattle Police.
People question what possessed her, yet not in such kind terms, as to why she was at the protest in the first place. A protest is no place for a pregnant woman. Indeed, after watching what had been happening at the Occupy protests nationwide at night, I would agree. However, they are forgetting that this girl was homeless. Occupy Seattle with its food and shelter was probably like a beacon of hope for her and her baby. Far safer than being a 19 year old girl living on the streets where, if raped or beaten, the odds of someone coming to help were slim. Occupy Seattle, from this girl's perspective, was the safest place she could be. At the Occupy, she was taken in with open arms something that, based on her homelessness, not even her family bothered to do. A peaceful protest will always be far safer than being homeless. Those who cannot grasp that haven't spent enough time observing and talking to the homeless themselves.
The question that I would ask is why should a pregnant woman be at risk for losing her baby simply for using her voice? Our First Amendment promotes the use of peaceful, free speech by our people. There is no where in the First Amendment that says that these protesters will be beaten with batons or pepper sprayed in exchange for the right to speak. What kind of country is it that we live in where we equate the expression of free speech as something dangerous? What kind of country is that that we live in where we make the expression of free speech dangerous? If this same young girl had been jumped in the streets and had the same thing happen to her, we'd probably not even hear about it. If we had, then what kind of outpouring of sympathy would we offer her collectively? A young homeless girl lost her baby. Is that not terrible enough on its own or must we vilify her because of her circumstance to bore in hatred to mix with her grief?
How did she even come to be in such a situation? Homeless, alone, pregnant--from my perspective, hardly more than a child herself. Where were the services that should have come to her rescue? Where were her family, friends, or even community when she needed help the most? With probably not a thought in her head, this young woman and her unborn baby have become an almost perfect yet abominable symbol of all that is wrong with our nation. In the effort to create a change, a more equitable and assured environment for our children, both born and unborn, a baby has died in an act of brutality. As we bicker about who should pay more taxes, parks and the price of gas, a young girl, pregnant and alone, was wandering the cold streets, looking for food and shelter. And when she finds it, in an almost horrific form of destiny, she is beaten by police and sprayed in the face with a chemical known to cause spontaneous abortions. How can this girl and her unborn child's death not make our hearts hurt? Or have we become so callous and stripped of our humanity that we no longer feel pity, empathy or even share the pain of a loss of life taken so needlessly?
Where has our humanity gone that we let this slip by so silently? A fatality occurred today for our nation. An unborn child's life was snuffed out like it was nothing in an attack by a few police officers, who should carry the weight of their actions with them for the rest of their lives. If there is anyone to blame for this, it is not the baby's mother and though it was police batons, boot and spray that did the deed, it's not the police either. It's our own fault for letting our country become this way in the first place. It's our own fault that we have allowed our voice to be drowned out as the number of homeless and impoverished grows. It's our own fault that we, while we are so busy with our nothing activities, let our nation's strength and humanity slip away. Who created the culture of fear and hate? We all did.
Update: Seattle Police are investigating. Personally, am hoping that she wasn't pregnant because of how grotesque losing a baby in such a way would be. However, the fact that the girl was screaming that she was pregnant while police were assaulting her did occur and that it did not give them pause is bad enough as it is.
The baby's mother was a 19 year old homeless woman, three months pregnant when she arrived at Occupy Seattle. Probably like many other homeless drawn to Occupies around the nation, she, too, came in search of food, shelter, and support. When the riot police began to arrive to evict Occupy Seattle, she tried to leave the area, telling the police that she was pregnant and needed to get out of there as any reasonable mother would feel with the threat of imminent danger. Instead of letting her pass safely through, she was instead hit with batons and kicked in the stomach as she screamed that she was pregnant and finally pepper sprayed full in the face. An ambulance took her to the hospital where things seemed like it would be okay. Five days later, she began to have sharp abdominal pains and felt sick. Like any pregnant mother would, she went to the hospital and there, the doctors performed yet another ultrasound. I know what it is like to see that bright star of a heartbeat disappear. I cannot imagine what she felt when she saw her own baby's heartbeat now gone. A victim of involuntary abortion by the hands of the Seattle Police.
People question what possessed her, yet not in such kind terms, as to why she was at the protest in the first place. A protest is no place for a pregnant woman. Indeed, after watching what had been happening at the Occupy protests nationwide at night, I would agree. However, they are forgetting that this girl was homeless. Occupy Seattle with its food and shelter was probably like a beacon of hope for her and her baby. Far safer than being a 19 year old girl living on the streets where, if raped or beaten, the odds of someone coming to help were slim. Occupy Seattle, from this girl's perspective, was the safest place she could be. At the Occupy, she was taken in with open arms something that, based on her homelessness, not even her family bothered to do. A peaceful protest will always be far safer than being homeless. Those who cannot grasp that haven't spent enough time observing and talking to the homeless themselves.
The question that I would ask is why should a pregnant woman be at risk for losing her baby simply for using her voice? Our First Amendment promotes the use of peaceful, free speech by our people. There is no where in the First Amendment that says that these protesters will be beaten with batons or pepper sprayed in exchange for the right to speak. What kind of country is it that we live in where we equate the expression of free speech as something dangerous? What kind of country is that that we live in where we make the expression of free speech dangerous? If this same young girl had been jumped in the streets and had the same thing happen to her, we'd probably not even hear about it. If we had, then what kind of outpouring of sympathy would we offer her collectively? A young homeless girl lost her baby. Is that not terrible enough on its own or must we vilify her because of her circumstance to bore in hatred to mix with her grief?
How did she even come to be in such a situation? Homeless, alone, pregnant--from my perspective, hardly more than a child herself. Where were the services that should have come to her rescue? Where were her family, friends, or even community when she needed help the most? With probably not a thought in her head, this young woman and her unborn baby have become an almost perfect yet abominable symbol of all that is wrong with our nation. In the effort to create a change, a more equitable and assured environment for our children, both born and unborn, a baby has died in an act of brutality. As we bicker about who should pay more taxes, parks and the price of gas, a young girl, pregnant and alone, was wandering the cold streets, looking for food and shelter. And when she finds it, in an almost horrific form of destiny, she is beaten by police and sprayed in the face with a chemical known to cause spontaneous abortions. How can this girl and her unborn child's death not make our hearts hurt? Or have we become so callous and stripped of our humanity that we no longer feel pity, empathy or even share the pain of a loss of life taken so needlessly?
Where has our humanity gone that we let this slip by so silently? A fatality occurred today for our nation. An unborn child's life was snuffed out like it was nothing in an attack by a few police officers, who should carry the weight of their actions with them for the rest of their lives. If there is anyone to blame for this, it is not the baby's mother and though it was police batons, boot and spray that did the deed, it's not the police either. It's our own fault for letting our country become this way in the first place. It's our own fault that we have allowed our voice to be drowned out as the number of homeless and impoverished grows. It's our own fault that we, while we are so busy with our nothing activities, let our nation's strength and humanity slip away. Who created the culture of fear and hate? We all did.
Update: Seattle Police are investigating. Personally, am hoping that she wasn't pregnant because of how grotesque losing a baby in such a way would be. However, the fact that the girl was screaming that she was pregnant while police were assaulting her did occur and that it did not give them pause is bad enough as it is.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Culture of Fear and Hate
When I wrote my blog post, "Who owns the media?", my intention was to lay a foundation on which, I had hoped, people could begin to critically think. My intention of the blog post was to illustrate how we, here in the US, have what can only be seen as a fairly tight knit techno-oligarchy of media. The implications of such the existence of a thing should give us immediate and direct pause for consideration of the possibility that the power that these 6 corporations wield over public opinion, ideologies, and the spread of information is astronomical.
All too often when I have brought this subject up, the most frequent response is that I am simply targeting Fox news. Nothing could be further from the truth. News Corporation is probably the most open about what they are doing with the American public. Unlike other media corporations, Fox will very clearly state their opinions regardless of how extreme they may be. Other media sources are sneakier about their activities, relying on what I would say is a subtle implantation of ideas. CNN may not say something so direct as "The Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of racist secessionists" but, by reporting on the existence of actual racist Tea Party members, they were propagating the idea within the reader that the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of racists.
When I took a course in persuasive writing, it wasn't the direct statement that was encouraged but instead, what was cited by the professor for this course was deliberately leading the reader of the piece, through implantation of thoughts, to seemingly develop the desired opinion by the end of the piece. This falls under what the other news corporations generally do with their readers and viewers, engaging in what is a subtle reinforcement of opinion. Fox, itself, also engages in a persuasive writing technique. The first example I can think of that highlights what Fox does is actually what President Obama did himself in his acceptance speech on the night of his election. Nothing is so powerful as repetition of statement--"yes, we can". The greater the frequency of repetition in specific phrases causes the reader or listener to essentially affiliate themselves with the statement. What's even more interesting about this kind of persuasive methodology is that the reader may actually forget the actual source of the statement as it becomes embedded. The reader may attribute the opinion as their own without even realizing it. Time and time again, I see evidence of source amnesia among my friends and among total strangers who are commenting in response to various things on the internet.
I find it incredibly strange that people don't note this nearly word for word repetition and I think I comprehend the reason why. As viewers and readers, we naturally gravitate to those who are expressing opinions that complement our own. In the case of source amnesia and repetition, the more like minded individuals state those words, the more it confirms the statement within ourselves. One of the frequently repeated statements that I have seen time and time again has been the remark, "Get a job" in response to Occupy. The level to which this particular statement has been used is prolific and every time that it's used, it creates what is called a confirmation bias. The Occupy movement itself is unique in that the embedding of ideas and repetitions have been nearly unanimously against the Occupy movement. On Fox, the protesters are equated to be "commie hippy rapists" and on CNN, their subtle implications have been that they are dirty and unfocused hippies. Neither of these two corporations were forthcoming on information that contradicted these ideas. This is the point where I ask the reader to recall that there are only 6 corporations in control of the majority of our media. Occupy is as much a threat to them as it is to the Koch Brothers or any other Occupy target.
The ramifications of the usage of persuasive writing techniques shouldn't be limited, however, to populist protests. I remember when I was younger and first learning about journalism, I was in awe. Here were these individuals with the important task of sharing information without bias to the public on which the public go ahead and draw their own conclusions on political matters. To me, the awe inspiring aspect was the intention of a journalist to strip one's own political beliefs out of the equation when reporting. Over the years, however, we have developed within our mainstream media something else entirely--political commentators. There is nothing more endangering to our political system and the intended unbiased nature of news reporting than these political commentators such as the likes of Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity. For listeners and viewers of a like mind that may affiliate themselves with a particular political party, these commentators set up a barrier between people. A democrat listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Sean Hannity will be repelled just as much as a republican would be listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Ed Schultz. Instead of the free exchange of ideas that the press is supposed to be, it is nothing more than a beast that creates a culture of hate and fear with the American public. It becomes not an issue of the American people as a whole but a separatist movement of us vs. them. It is nothing more than propaganda but not in support of any specific government or war. I would hazard that, in light of things--particularly the tight knit nature of the techno-oligarchy--that the intentions of this propaganda technique is to keep the American people divided. From this base, we are spoon fed our talking points from which our politicians in Congress and our Presidential candidates feeds.
Left vs. right, democrats vs. republicans. Dirty commie hippies. Racist Secessionist Treason Tea Party. How many times have you, my reader, heard these kind of statements? How many times have you been stunned by the culture of fear and hate that we live in? Fear and hate have become such a divisive element within our country that if we make a statement about police brutality, we are immediately dubbed "cop haters". If we question or support a specific political group, how many times have base assumptions about one's character and beliefs been leveled? Labels do nothing beyond strip the humanity from others. I have seen so much hate and encouragement of harm to police officers and protesters that it has forced me to wonder when did people forget that others are human, too? In the words of Patrick Henry, "Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."
United we stand, divided we fall. These words that we should all have embedded in us are the right words to be embedded. Let us not let hateful rhetoric endanger our political system. There is nothing more powerful than the sharing of ideas without fear, anger or hate. The open sharing of ideas is what created this country. Disagreement between ourselves is natural and from disagreement, consensus may arise but only if we are even allowed to talk to each other. If we instead repeat oft heard phrases that we no longer recall the original source of that do nothing beyond alienate each other, then there is no discourse and no hope for consensus.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All too often when I have brought this subject up, the most frequent response is that I am simply targeting Fox news. Nothing could be further from the truth. News Corporation is probably the most open about what they are doing with the American public. Unlike other media corporations, Fox will very clearly state their opinions regardless of how extreme they may be. Other media sources are sneakier about their activities, relying on what I would say is a subtle implantation of ideas. CNN may not say something so direct as "The Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of racist secessionists" but, by reporting on the existence of actual racist Tea Party members, they were propagating the idea within the reader that the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of racists.
When I took a course in persuasive writing, it wasn't the direct statement that was encouraged but instead, what was cited by the professor for this course was deliberately leading the reader of the piece, through implantation of thoughts, to seemingly develop the desired opinion by the end of the piece. This falls under what the other news corporations generally do with their readers and viewers, engaging in what is a subtle reinforcement of opinion. Fox, itself, also engages in a persuasive writing technique. The first example I can think of that highlights what Fox does is actually what President Obama did himself in his acceptance speech on the night of his election. Nothing is so powerful as repetition of statement--"yes, we can". The greater the frequency of repetition in specific phrases causes the reader or listener to essentially affiliate themselves with the statement. What's even more interesting about this kind of persuasive methodology is that the reader may actually forget the actual source of the statement as it becomes embedded. The reader may attribute the opinion as their own without even realizing it. Time and time again, I see evidence of source amnesia among my friends and among total strangers who are commenting in response to various things on the internet.
I find it incredibly strange that people don't note this nearly word for word repetition and I think I comprehend the reason why. As viewers and readers, we naturally gravitate to those who are expressing opinions that complement our own. In the case of source amnesia and repetition, the more like minded individuals state those words, the more it confirms the statement within ourselves. One of the frequently repeated statements that I have seen time and time again has been the remark, "Get a job" in response to Occupy. The level to which this particular statement has been used is prolific and every time that it's used, it creates what is called a confirmation bias. The Occupy movement itself is unique in that the embedding of ideas and repetitions have been nearly unanimously against the Occupy movement. On Fox, the protesters are equated to be "commie hippy rapists" and on CNN, their subtle implications have been that they are dirty and unfocused hippies. Neither of these two corporations were forthcoming on information that contradicted these ideas. This is the point where I ask the reader to recall that there are only 6 corporations in control of the majority of our media. Occupy is as much a threat to them as it is to the Koch Brothers or any other Occupy target.
The ramifications of the usage of persuasive writing techniques shouldn't be limited, however, to populist protests. I remember when I was younger and first learning about journalism, I was in awe. Here were these individuals with the important task of sharing information without bias to the public on which the public go ahead and draw their own conclusions on political matters. To me, the awe inspiring aspect was the intention of a journalist to strip one's own political beliefs out of the equation when reporting. Over the years, however, we have developed within our mainstream media something else entirely--political commentators. There is nothing more endangering to our political system and the intended unbiased nature of news reporting than these political commentators such as the likes of Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity. For listeners and viewers of a like mind that may affiliate themselves with a particular political party, these commentators set up a barrier between people. A democrat listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Sean Hannity will be repelled just as much as a republican would be listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Ed Schultz. Instead of the free exchange of ideas that the press is supposed to be, it is nothing more than a beast that creates a culture of hate and fear with the American public. It becomes not an issue of the American people as a whole but a separatist movement of us vs. them. It is nothing more than propaganda but not in support of any specific government or war. I would hazard that, in light of things--particularly the tight knit nature of the techno-oligarchy--that the intentions of this propaganda technique is to keep the American people divided. From this base, we are spoon fed our talking points from which our politicians in Congress and our Presidential candidates feeds.
Left vs. right, democrats vs. republicans. Dirty commie hippies. Racist Secessionist Treason Tea Party. How many times have you, my reader, heard these kind of statements? How many times have you been stunned by the culture of fear and hate that we live in? Fear and hate have become such a divisive element within our country that if we make a statement about police brutality, we are immediately dubbed "cop haters". If we question or support a specific political group, how many times have base assumptions about one's character and beliefs been leveled? Labels do nothing beyond strip the humanity from others. I have seen so much hate and encouragement of harm to police officers and protesters that it has forced me to wonder when did people forget that others are human, too? In the words of Patrick Henry, "Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."
United we stand, divided we fall. These words that we should all have embedded in us are the right words to be embedded. Let us not let hateful rhetoric endanger our political system. There is nothing more powerful than the sharing of ideas without fear, anger or hate. The open sharing of ideas is what created this country. Disagreement between ourselves is natural and from disagreement, consensus may arise but only if we are even allowed to talk to each other. If we instead repeat oft heard phrases that we no longer recall the original source of that do nothing beyond alienate each other, then there is no discourse and no hope for consensus.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The Illusion of Choice
The majority of the world's economy is based on some form of capitalism. The idea behind capitalism, especially in its laissez-faire form, is that competitive markets of privately owned industries work to increase the growth of our economy and act to control prices through competition and supply and demand. The strength of such an economy lies in the diversity of its participants, just as diversity is the strength of an ecosystem. Competition is incredibly important in promoting the health of the economy and, frequently, the people and environment. Theoretically, as consumers, we can essentially choose between those producers based on their price, quality, and even behavior within society. We vote with our dollars as to whom is going to succeed and who is going to fail. The higher the number of competitors, the higher the impact of with whom we choose to spend as market share is spread in reasonable quantities amongst the products of that segment of the industry. A problem arises, however, when the number of competitors decrease as our options of with whom to "vote with our dollars" has diminished impact. Called an oligopoly, this kind of market can either create fierce competition or collusion.
Oligopolies have other effects beyond fierce competition and collusion. In an oligopoly, a mere handful of companies control the market in which they participate. This creates, in itself, very powerful entities with extreme economic power that create a barrier to entry for a new producer to join the market. In a sense, it's like imagining a fight between a pit bull and a chihuahua. Although there may be the unique instance where a chihuahua may win, most of the time the bigger dog is going to be successful. In an oligopoly, a winning chihuahua is more likely to be acquired and absorbed into the larger competitor. In fact, one of the most common and frequently used corporate strategies is acquisition. Regardless of whether the acquired companies succeeds or fails post-acquisition, it still acts in the parent corporation's best interest by eliminating competition. This is, essentially, the death of the "American Dream".
My father was one of those dreamers. In 1976 with a mere $10,000, he became a service station dealer. By around 1999, his $10,000 investment had grown into a corporation that was valued at $32 million in capital assets. According to one of Texaco's marketing representatives at the time, my father's sales constituted 50% of all gasoline sales west of the Willamette River and was the largest volume gasoline dealer in the entire Pacific Northwest. Thinking back to the pit bull vs. chihuahua analogy, it's not surprising what happened to his business. Just a year later, Texaco, his host brand, attempted to acquire his company for $30 million. My father refused and for a variety of reasons, some of which Texaco itself had a large hand in, his company is no more. No matter what tactic my father tried, Shell-Texaco's control of the gasoline market followed him until his business was no more. I do not think that my father's own experience is something novel or unique. Instead, it is simply par for the course and something that occurs in nearly every industry.
To prove my theory that the power of oligopolies and their acquisition strategies have put a relatively unseen stranglehold on competition and an entry barrier, I did what anyone has to do on an at least once a week basis--I went grocery shopping. I headed down to Safeway (yet another large corporate entity) and grabbed a cart. My goal for my shopping trip wasn't simply to pick up the Throwback Pepsi that I adore. It was to actually start looking at what was lining the shelves themselves. As a mom, I can probably list off at least a hundred different food brands from Frito-Lay to Kraft Mac and Cheese to Progresso soups. I have considered myself to be a fairly ethical consumer who tends to purchase the less commonly known brands in an effort to at least give what I perceive as "chihuahuas" a bit of chance for my economic "vote". We don't eat Ball Park or Oscar Meyer hot dogs--we eat Hebrew National. I only buy Oroweat because I know that Oroweat has bakeries in the area and I want to support my local community. Just like I am more likely to buy a Reser's brand food item than say Mission because it is in support of my local economy. Walking through a grocery store, we seemingly have at our disposal a veritable smorgasbord of brands to choose from. It isn't true.
Starting in the produce section, who is selling what is really hard to glean but I am aware that a number of farms have been accumulated into super farms of a sort. I'm not going to even try to figure out who grew the lettuce I bought yesterday. It's simply too hard but the moment I started passing through the rest of the aisles and actually looking at labels on some of the foods randomly, I began seeing a common theme. It became almost poignant in the cereal aisle where the mass majority of that particular aisle consisted of either three brands--Kellogg's, Post, or General Mills. Even what appeared to be small brand less familiar cereals generally fell under the blanket of one of those three. It was with near desperation that I finally found a cereal that was not affiliated with one of those three companies--Barbara's cereal. In the basket, it went alongside the two heads of lettuce probably grown on a super farm.
From product to product as I, with increasing panic, examined labels of what I perceived to be various brands, I discovered that a massive percentage of the food stocking the shelves at Safeway and probably any other grocery store--even locally owned--ended up going to one of 4 major food industry producers--ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs, or Kraft. My estimate is that at least 75% of the total shelf space within a grocery store is being utilized by one of these four companies. I had always known on some level that many of our products lining our grocery store shelves probably were part of a larger corporation but I had never really considered just how extensive it was. By the time I left the grocery store, I was in a state of shock. It was far worse than I had ever imagined. When I got home, I was frantically scouring the labels of the products that lined my own shelves. ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs or Kraft--nearly everything my children and I eat was manufactured by one of these four companies. Even my ethical choice, my beloved "Hebrew National" hotdogs were merely yet another brand owned by ConAgra. My beloved Oroweat? Well that turns out to be a brand under Bimbo Bakeries. They are apparently one of the world's largest bakeries and also make Wonderbread.
When we walk into a grocery store, we think we have so much choice when it comes to who is going to be the recipient of our voting dollar. Unless we want to make everything from scratch, what we face as we go through the aisles isn't really freedom of choice. It's the illusion of choice. It's sad and ironic that the only areas where there seemed to be more diversity of choice in Safeway was in the beer and wine departments and on the dog food shelves. Some of you may not think that this is necessarily a bad thing but it's actually a breathtakingly, horrifying situation that we find ourselves in. Thinking back upon what I have previously said in regards to the importance of diversity within a market to not only promote growth within the economy but also assure the health of both people and the environment, it is absolutely disturbing that the companies who are feeding us the majority of our foodstuffs are in fact an oligopoly. We are talking about the sustenance of our lives. That's chilling and no matter how hard you try to find an alternative, odds are what you are going to eat, what you're going to feed your children will most likely still go to those four companies.
We wonder how the hell we got into this economic situation where economic wealth has been piling up towards the top 1%. This is part of the reason how. We think we have all these differing choices and, in actuality, it's all an illusion--magic trick of different product name and fine print. Below are links to the product listings of ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg's and Kraft. See for yourself the reality of your choice.
ConAgra
General Mills
Kellogg's
Kraft
Oligopolies have other effects beyond fierce competition and collusion. In an oligopoly, a mere handful of companies control the market in which they participate. This creates, in itself, very powerful entities with extreme economic power that create a barrier to entry for a new producer to join the market. In a sense, it's like imagining a fight between a pit bull and a chihuahua. Although there may be the unique instance where a chihuahua may win, most of the time the bigger dog is going to be successful. In an oligopoly, a winning chihuahua is more likely to be acquired and absorbed into the larger competitor. In fact, one of the most common and frequently used corporate strategies is acquisition. Regardless of whether the acquired companies succeeds or fails post-acquisition, it still acts in the parent corporation's best interest by eliminating competition. This is, essentially, the death of the "American Dream".
My father was one of those dreamers. In 1976 with a mere $10,000, he became a service station dealer. By around 1999, his $10,000 investment had grown into a corporation that was valued at $32 million in capital assets. According to one of Texaco's marketing representatives at the time, my father's sales constituted 50% of all gasoline sales west of the Willamette River and was the largest volume gasoline dealer in the entire Pacific Northwest. Thinking back to the pit bull vs. chihuahua analogy, it's not surprising what happened to his business. Just a year later, Texaco, his host brand, attempted to acquire his company for $30 million. My father refused and for a variety of reasons, some of which Texaco itself had a large hand in, his company is no more. No matter what tactic my father tried, Shell-Texaco's control of the gasoline market followed him until his business was no more. I do not think that my father's own experience is something novel or unique. Instead, it is simply par for the course and something that occurs in nearly every industry.
To prove my theory that the power of oligopolies and their acquisition strategies have put a relatively unseen stranglehold on competition and an entry barrier, I did what anyone has to do on an at least once a week basis--I went grocery shopping. I headed down to Safeway (yet another large corporate entity) and grabbed a cart. My goal for my shopping trip wasn't simply to pick up the Throwback Pepsi that I adore. It was to actually start looking at what was lining the shelves themselves. As a mom, I can probably list off at least a hundred different food brands from Frito-Lay to Kraft Mac and Cheese to Progresso soups. I have considered myself to be a fairly ethical consumer who tends to purchase the less commonly known brands in an effort to at least give what I perceive as "chihuahuas" a bit of chance for my economic "vote". We don't eat Ball Park or Oscar Meyer hot dogs--we eat Hebrew National. I only buy Oroweat because I know that Oroweat has bakeries in the area and I want to support my local community. Just like I am more likely to buy a Reser's brand food item than say Mission because it is in support of my local economy. Walking through a grocery store, we seemingly have at our disposal a veritable smorgasbord of brands to choose from. It isn't true.
Starting in the produce section, who is selling what is really hard to glean but I am aware that a number of farms have been accumulated into super farms of a sort. I'm not going to even try to figure out who grew the lettuce I bought yesterday. It's simply too hard but the moment I started passing through the rest of the aisles and actually looking at labels on some of the foods randomly, I began seeing a common theme. It became almost poignant in the cereal aisle where the mass majority of that particular aisle consisted of either three brands--Kellogg's, Post, or General Mills. Even what appeared to be small brand less familiar cereals generally fell under the blanket of one of those three. It was with near desperation that I finally found a cereal that was not affiliated with one of those three companies--Barbara's cereal. In the basket, it went alongside the two heads of lettuce probably grown on a super farm.
From product to product as I, with increasing panic, examined labels of what I perceived to be various brands, I discovered that a massive percentage of the food stocking the shelves at Safeway and probably any other grocery store--even locally owned--ended up going to one of 4 major food industry producers--ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs, or Kraft. My estimate is that at least 75% of the total shelf space within a grocery store is being utilized by one of these four companies. I had always known on some level that many of our products lining our grocery store shelves probably were part of a larger corporation but I had never really considered just how extensive it was. By the time I left the grocery store, I was in a state of shock. It was far worse than I had ever imagined. When I got home, I was frantically scouring the labels of the products that lined my own shelves. ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs or Kraft--nearly everything my children and I eat was manufactured by one of these four companies. Even my ethical choice, my beloved "Hebrew National" hotdogs were merely yet another brand owned by ConAgra. My beloved Oroweat? Well that turns out to be a brand under Bimbo Bakeries. They are apparently one of the world's largest bakeries and also make Wonderbread.
When we walk into a grocery store, we think we have so much choice when it comes to who is going to be the recipient of our voting dollar. Unless we want to make everything from scratch, what we face as we go through the aisles isn't really freedom of choice. It's the illusion of choice. It's sad and ironic that the only areas where there seemed to be more diversity of choice in Safeway was in the beer and wine departments and on the dog food shelves. Some of you may not think that this is necessarily a bad thing but it's actually a breathtakingly, horrifying situation that we find ourselves in. Thinking back upon what I have previously said in regards to the importance of diversity within a market to not only promote growth within the economy but also assure the health of both people and the environment, it is absolutely disturbing that the companies who are feeding us the majority of our foodstuffs are in fact an oligopoly. We are talking about the sustenance of our lives. That's chilling and no matter how hard you try to find an alternative, odds are what you are going to eat, what you're going to feed your children will most likely still go to those four companies.
We wonder how the hell we got into this economic situation where economic wealth has been piling up towards the top 1%. This is part of the reason how. We think we have all these differing choices and, in actuality, it's all an illusion--magic trick of different product name and fine print. Below are links to the product listings of ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg's and Kraft. See for yourself the reality of your choice.
ConAgra
General Mills
Kellogg's
Kraft
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)