It examines how cultures accept/reject U.S. brands invading their culture, and how derivative products come out to stand against these large corporations.
In particular, my mind focuses on the word "local". This word is so abused in present context that I am loathe to see it anywhere. It is used to sell us every product under the sun, and has no concrete definition.
As a result, that word is nearly meaningless to anybody who is to a degree aware of its usage. I had to write a paper once on the advantages of local food over traveled food. While the prospect was good (removing preservatives from the food, less trucks on the road polluting the air, and support for local farmers), I quickly found out that "local" had never been defined. Neither had Organic, but that's a different argument.
The word is completely ambiguous, and could be used to indicate that the product was made in your neighborhood, your city, your state, your country, your hemisphere, your planet. That's a bit dramatic, but the scale can be indefinitely larger while still being "okay" to call local.
Corporations are the abusers of this word, as it is their descriptions that tag "local" onto products or services. It's a catch-all that consumers fall for, as it helps them feel better about the purchase (not incorrectly, it is understandable to be happy if you think your coffee came from the guy 10 miles away).
Thus, it makes the customer happy to hear the word, even if it isn't true (and can be used regardless of truth because it has no definition to be held to). Of course Big Businesses will drench the market with "local" if it will sell products and make consumers feel good.
For me personally, the whole thing leaves a bad aftertaste.
-Thomas Holland
No comments:
Post a Comment