Thursday, October 27, 2011

Roland Barthes "Mythologies" and Consumerism in the Occupy Wall Street Movement

A student called Anthony emailed me asking he could write a post on my site about Occupy Wall Street.  I said yes here it is.  His name is Anthony Garcia he writes at www.onlinegraduateprograms.com what do you think? He'll probably be incredibly famous one day.





Students in online graduate programs and traditional colleges read and discuss the world famous theories Roland Barthes. When Barthes published his seminal 1957 work, Mythologies, the way linguists, philosophers, and semiologists thought about symbols and myths was significantly altered. Barthes was concerned with the ways in which symbols function in contemporary society, particularly in a consumerist context. For Barthes, consumers purchase products because there is an unmeasured value attached to them through myths and symbols. A luxury car may not be any better than a family sedan, but society tends to view people who drive luxury cars differently. According to Barthes, a symbol can be a sign, product, or even a word (for example, he notes that the word "tree" is a symbol for a concrete object). Symbols impact and affect daily life in myriad ways that continue to interest curious observers.

In protests about how the economy functions, education is always a key factor. The effects today of this regime of symbols are seen nowhere more clearly than in the Occupy Wall Street movement. For the past several weeks, protesters have gathered in New York City and other major metropolitan areas to protest what they view as the inequitable distribution of wealth in American society. The members of this movement are concerned with how business and banking practices have affected American democracy and the well-being of millions of citizens. In an era of bailouts and recessions, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement are putting the spotlight on consumer practices in the U.S.

For Barthes, symbols represent ideas beyond the objects to which they are attached. A diamond engagement ring is not just a ring; a diamond engagement ring is a representation of love and devotion. Symbols of wealth are central to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Much ado has been made about bonuses in the banking and insurance industries in the last decade. In Barthes system, bonuses are more than just checks. Bonuses are a representation of who is deemed worthy in society and business.

For the protesters gathered with the Occupy movement, penthouses and bonus checks communicate a great deal about bankers and businessmen. These are not just homes and checks, they are symbols of a kind of ultra-wealth. Housing is a particularly potent symbol, considering the 'brand awareness' many Americans have of ultra-rich neighborhoods like Central Park, Beverly Hills, and Nob Hill. The arrest protesters are a potent symbol of government power. We are led to ask who has it, who does not have it, who will get it in the future? Education can symbolize many things, and certainly does in this movement.

Symbols and their attendant myths are not just attached to the powers that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are fighting, though. The protesters themselves are also characterized by signifying symbols. Slogans written on simple cardboard signs have a mythology—a history—of their own in American society, and they are certainly communicating a whole set of ideas about the Occupy Wall Street protesters. American flags are a potent symbol which can take on many different meanings. Some protesters have been spotted waving the original 13-stars version of the flag, perhaps in a call for fellow citizens to really consider the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps the most potent symbol of all in and around the Occupy Wall Street movement is Wall Street itself. One of the most famous streets in America, Wall Street alternatively signifies the dreams and nightmares of citizens. It has appeared in movies as a potent symbol of absolute wealth and power, and has also been used as the symbol of absolute corruption and greed. No matter what end the Occupy Wall Street movement comes to, the attention it has drawn to consumerism and symbols in America and could potentially change the way everyone thinks about wealth, power, and opportunity.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Occupy Melbourne: The Good and Bad



I ventured down to Occupy Melbourne yesterday.  It was the first Melbourne event in a global 'movement', originally started as Occupy Wall Street in New York.  The movement was originally started by Adbusters, and was a protest against the uneven distribution of wealth.  The movement has sort of, kind of, taken hold and at this early stage in the movements inception it's worth noting what they are doing right and wrong.


Wrong
  • Lack of clarity: Lets assume the goal of the movement is to have economic equality - if that's the case then everything they do should be single minded towards that goal (think Wall Street protest by Adbusters).  The rallies should be held in the financial quarter of the capital cities (not the city square), and protest should be limited to that agenda (not land rights, gay marriage, or 9 / 11 conspirators.  Like any good brand keep it focused.
  • Vitriol towards the 1%: Nelson Mandela said 'The stronger the enemy the stronger you are.'  He was keen to embrace the enemy and work with them.  Capitalism isn't broken, it  provides happiness and opportunity for most people in most countries where it takes hold - however it can certainly be improved.  There were also too many hippies and hipsters. The rally felt like no less of a lunatic fringe than the type of crowd Allan Jones and Tony Abbott could muster - not at all representative of the 99%.
  • Lack of credibility: The issues of fair distribution of wealth is a complex one.  An economist or someone with credibility should have been on hand to talk about how the trickle down economy is broken and doesn't work, and provide other sound robust economic models to consider. 


Right
  • Open source content:  Instead of having an agenda they make people listen to the floor is opened up for anyone to suggest anything and then voted on by the general assembly. This then dictates the movements actions.  If this remains focused it's a great way to galvanise and direct the masses.
  • Social media and PR: The campaign has created huge amounts of noise on and online by clever and consistent use of social media.
  • The right cause: It feels like the cause of unfair distribution of the countries wealth is a fair and timely issue to go after.  No one else owns this ground.  
Watch Occupy closely - If they can keep it focused, and not get hi-jacked by the lunatic fringe (it's meant to be the 99% involved) then this one may be here to stay.


Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The Steve Jobs Hoopla


Heres an opinion piece on Mumbrella about our reaction to Steve Job's death. The Naked office is a reasonably fun and happy place. On the whole it’s free of workplace bullying, and most people clock in and out at a reasonable hour.  However, recently something happened that caused great upset to our staff – it was beyond our control and very worrying.  There were group emails sent around with messages of condolence, and perhaps even a tear or two.  However, it wasn’t just our office – the same scenes of morning could be seen right across the world. What happened?
Well…. Last week a very good manufacturer of consumer electronics died, Steve Jobs.
After his death The Economist describes Steve Jobs as a man who “Stood out in three ways – as a technologist, as a corporate leader and as somebody who was able to make people love what had previously been impersonal, functional gadgets.”
Could not have said it better myself.
We are living in a world where there is an unparalleled outpouring of grief for someone who has made us fall in love with our PDA’s, computers, and MP3’s.
What the fuck?

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Don't get Ripped Off By Real Estate Agents



I'm selling a house, and I'm very well aware of the research that demonstrate the many forces at play to ensure a real estate agent will try and sell my house for a low price not a high one.  However, I'm also lazy and / or don't have the confidence to sell it myself. So what do you do?


Real Estate Agents Will Try and Sell Your House For a Low Price
Real Estate agents in Australia work on a commission of between 1.6% and 2.2% - whatever they can get away with.  It's a flat fee and one that only gets paid if the house is sold.  If the commission is 1.8% and you sell the house for $1,000,000 that means the agent will make $18,000.  If the house doesn't sell - the agent gets nothing.


However, if you sell the same house for a terrible price say $850,000 (compared to the $100,000 expected) the agent will still make $15,300, that's only $2,700 less. Conversely if they sell it for $1,200,000 then they only make $21,640  The figures between a low amount for a property, and a high amount for a property mean a lot to you  -but not that much to the agent - especially when you consider how much they make if the house does not sell at all $0.00.  Hence, your real estate agent will want to sell your house AT ANY COST.  it matters much more to them that the house sells, rather than what they sell it for. You can see this below:
  • No Sale = $0.00
  • Sell at bad price = $15,300
  • Sell at ok price = $18,000
  • Sell at great price = $21,640
The Freakonomics authors refer to this study that also shows real estate agents reduce the value of a property sale. They also show evidence here and here why and how real estate agents try and sell houses for a lower price.  Anyway, if you believe the Freakonomics guys (and associated research) or not, the logic I put upfront is - I think, compelling.


The Solution
Create your own incentive scheme for the real estate agent, one that will change their behaviour, and have them motivated to sell the house, at a high price, not be motivated to sell the house at any price.  I personally have just negotiated with an agent and have put the following incentive scheme in place*:
  • 1.0% commission for every dollar they get for selling the house up to $1,000,000, plus
  • 10% commission for every dollar they gets between $1,000,000 and $1,150,000, plus
  • 20% commission for every dollar they gets over $1,150,000
So if the real estate agent does there brilliant best and we sell the house for $1,200,000 they would make $35,000 (that's $10,000 (1.0% of 1,000,00) + $15,000 (10% of $150,000) + $10,000 (20% of $50,000), compared to the $21,640 he would have made if we had a flat rate of 1.8%.  And believe me, if I sell this house for $1,200,000 I would be more than happy to part with $35,000:
  • No Sale = $0.00
  • Sell at bad price = $8,500
  • Sell at ok price = $10,000
  • Sell at great price = $35,000
What do you think? 
So what do you think? If the house sells for an great price I owe $35,000 in fees rather than $21,640 in fees.  However, everyone wins as the real estate agent is on my side.  There is, from I can gather very little written about this confusing world. I would like to know from real estate agents, economists, and the general public if I am on the right track or not.  In short we need to incentivise people to work in our interests, not against them.  In the current paradigm real estate agents are incentivised to work against the person paying the bills (the seller) and in the interests of the buyer.  It's a silly system and needs to be rethought. 


Note the photo is courtesy of Mumbrella - spot the IT guy.


* Please note all prices are indicative - to make the point. Not actual prices.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Social Media Suggestions: How to Charge TARPS into BANANAS

Caption Added: Click to make big (but you should be able to read it anyway)
Two key rules for social media are discussed in the article above originally printed in Adnews. It's also the reason why everyone now refers to TARPS as BANANAS.