// Mario Minichiello: Visual Communication

Thank you all for your comments – all the issues I am looking at in my lecture are as a result of the polarisation of the world’s resources and the concentration of fiscal wealth in the West and, at a micro level, a concentration of greater wealth within different social groups. This has resulted in the  growth of  ‘me too’ products; an example is the vast number of makes of cars  but are they ‘really’ that different from each other – especially in a traffic jam? Because of this vast rise in availability and choice between very similar products, the global advertising industry has, since the 1980s developed new and radical approaches to selling.

To do this it has developed an effective way of defining who people are and what their life aspirations might be. In the 1980s advertisers changed their approach from regarding the public as ‘customers’ or ‘shoppers’ to ‘consumers’. Perceived as possessing spending power beyond basic subsistence level they would no longer just ‘buy’ products; instead they would be persuaded to choose ‘brands’. These brands would say something about what they had achieved, had become or wanted to be; and how much money they would allow themselves to part with in order to ‘prove’ that statement was to be regarded as their own responsibility. Being given freedom of choice suggests a parable ability to choose wisely – perhaps often not the case, but to the immense advantage of the advertising companies and ultimately the product industry. Convincing shoppers that they had the elevated status of consumer was half the battle, advertisers next had to get over the hurdle of scepticism.

In the words of Starbucks’ Vice President: “Consumers don’t truly believe there’s a huge difference between products, which is why Brands MUST establish emotional ties”  The aim of appealing to the individual’s beliefs and aspirations enables the consumer to rethink their understanding of what a product represents and says about their own lives. As this is a subjective consideration rather than the objective choice previously encountered in merely selecting one product over another because of its ability to do the job, it is not easily quantifiable, thus allowing the product company more leeway in justifying a higher price.

Examples of successful application of Brand thinking include: Tommy Hilfiger, Nike, Swatch, BMW, Harley Davidson, Starbucks, Prada, Rolex, Sony, Benneton and Body Shop.

The Body Shop as a Brand conveys a grand idea, a political philosophy about women, the environment, and ethical business. Anita Roddick has positioned the Body Shop in the cosmetic sector as the leader in ethical retailing. How true this really is is questionable?  But all this really starts to matter much more when this kind of thinking and approach is applied to political issues – and that is when my presentation because interesting – hope you can join me, perhaps via the web?

Mario

It does not matter what politicians, campaigners or scientists do, their actions are overwhelmed by the tidal wave of consumerist thinking and lifestyle behaviour. If we do not find ways of address these issues of behaviour and  consumption, no social, political or scientific thinking will alter the course being set. While we are being reassured that all is well we are, in fact, living in a global industrial accident and we seem to be in no particularly hurry to address its consequences.

Mario Minichiello

Mario Minichiello

On the evening of 10 February 2010 Professor Mario Minichiello, Head of Birmingham Institute of Art and Design’s Department Visual Communications at Birmingham City University, will examine both methods of visual persuasion and the influences on them by world events. He will also question how these techniques may be used to change our behaviour to deliver a more sustainable future. The lecture will also host an exhibition of Professor Minichiello’s reportage drawing work conducted for BBC’s Newsnight, The Guardian newspaper and the Arts and Humanities Research Council.