Message-ID: <v03010d03aef84edc02b2@[208.204.99.154]> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:17:06 -0500 From: toby vann <mailto:tv@MATERIALMEDIA.COM> Subject: Re: Why capitalism is NOT sustainable -Reply To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Jonathan Sanford posted:> Presumably, privately owned art studios and theaters could
>produce vast quantities of art and drama that the public might clamor to buy--
>acquisition of ideas and feelings rather than things.
I believe if I'm not mistaken that this is the hallmark of branding. Show me an ad agency in the world that hasn't latched on to this idea and I'll show you one that's future ain't so bright.
>Then entrepreneurs would discover
>methods for transmitting those images and dramatic presentations to the
>broader public through technical amplifications.
Again, do people *really* but Nike because of its superior quality, or is it the undefinable *magic* that it represents?
>In fact, the sale of services bulks larger
>in our national product than does the sale of products. And as my
>illustration
>of arts and drama suggests, a lot of our products are essentially services
>in a
>new guise.
What? Does this mean that a motivation to purchase is synonymous with a service? I don't think so.
Toby Vann