North American culture has changed significantly in the past twenty years alone: primarily, the fundamental way

in which people are viewed and objects are valued. Commodity consumption has become the most significant way in which to judge a persons lifestyle, status, and ultimately, theyre well-being in society. The growing demand for commodities has allowed consumer capitalism to maintain a controlling grasp on North American humanity, as major corporations are increasingly starting to hold more power than the state itself. This change has occurred for several reasons, though there are three prominent facets to which these mass ideas have been portrayed and consequently formed a chain effect. Firstly, the rise and fall of small, independently owned businesses that have been replaced by major companies attempting to sell an idea or lifestyle author of No Logo, Naomi Klein, reflects on the hopeful emergence of resistance to brand culture in North America and Europe (McGuigan, 51). This resistance, however, is difficult due to the second factor in the capitalist chain effect - the constant promotion major companies receive from the media: almost any and all commercial information broadcasted to the public, be it in movies, journalism or billboards, contains a significant amount of brand advertising. The final result is our cultures inevitable desire towards these brands and commodities: they are viewed as necessary, without which a person would seem of lesser status and consequently, un-well. Though commodity consumption has existed for decades, only recently has it become a crucial aspect of societal acceptance. Before the complete take-over of capitalist consumption, independently owned and ran companies offered commodities to the public that were moreover necessary as opposed to frivolous. In the late 20th century, someone in need of groceries or fresh produce ought to simply visit their neighborhood market, likely publicly owned; all sales going to the independent owner and consequently benefitting the community. It wasnt until megastores such as Wal-Mart started opening up that significant change in consumer culture was noticeable. The effacement of the public as a separate entity from the private is especially marked in the corporate takeover of public space (McGuigan, 51). These massive retail outlets began putting independently owned stores out of business offering any and all products imaginable at extremely low costs. The privatisation of companies like Wal-Mart allow them to cut down product pricing by paying their workers a minimal amount: an independent study put Walmart's average hourly wage at $8.81, or less than $15,000 a year at Walmart's "fulltime" 32hour work week. But many employees get fewer hours, and random and unstable scheduling is a big concern (Brown). It comes as no surprise that independent businesses competing with a company as powerful as Wal-Mart would undoubtedly be faced with the inability to sell a certain quota of goods, even with lowering prices and offering more commodities. These massive companies are able to maintain their low prices in many ways, another tactic being the use of global capitalism the exploitation of woman and child workers in the Global South. Companies who establish factory plantations in low socio-economic areas around

the world are consequently able to pay workers close to nothing in exchange for high levels of labour demand and output. Retail companies such as Nike are exemplary cases of design and marketing outfits, lavishing huge fees upon celebrities to promote the goods which are made by the outsourced, under-paid and ill-treated workers that PR functionaries say they didn`t know about (McGuigan, 51). These companies have closed down any factories in the Global North and, as author Jim McGuigan explains, began outsourcing production where labour is cheap; and political authority gives no protection to local workers. Instead, the locals are offered up as factory fodder to the global machine of value extraction (McGuigan, 51). In turn, the cost for these products are significantly lower (in some cases), and consumers are able to access whichever label or brand they wish to self-market. As author Naomi Klein points out in her documentary No Logo, these companies are subsequently promoting a certain lifestyle through commodity consumption owning and wearing a certain brand or label corresponds with a particular image or ideology. The output of these goods is, rather than commodity production, Klein calls it brand production aggressively maximizing the visibility and symbolic meaning of brands (McAllister, 288). Because the possession of commodities actually co-exists with owning or living a certain lifestyle, the lack of commodity consumption can be associated with living an un-recognizable lifestyle, or one that is of less value. It is considerably more difficult to ignore a culture of commodity consumption when media, the main source of North American information, is filled with brand marketing. It can often be noted while watching North American television that commercials alone broadcast a distinct lifestyle for every product they attempt to sell. Thirty years ago, a commercial for a telephone would be plain and simple: an image of a telephone, the features accompanying said device, and how to acquire it. In the twenty first century, however, a cell phone commercial would in fact have little to no information on the device, rather images and clips of people using the object. Judging by those types of people, the viewer then is left to determine whether or not he or she would like to live that same lifestyle. This is the core component of the use-value that brands provide consumers with: with a particular brand I can act, feel and be in a particular way. With a Macintosh computer I can become a particular kind of person, and form particular kinds of relations to others (Arvidsson, 8). This system creates several universally distinguishable lifestyles and value systems, all of which are centered on commodity consumption. Author of Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture Adam Arvidsson refers to this as the production of economically valuable forms of ethical surplus, which often proceeds through Media Culture on the job to form social relations - pop culture as a way of generating group solidarity (Arvidsson, 10). Several years ago, the ideas fed through the media unto the public were considerably more avoidable, whereas now, in the twenty first century, electronic media has entirely consumed the way in which our culture receives information. Naomi Kleins No Logo suggests that, while a certain agency in the use of goods or other objects has probably always been present, it has been highly enhanced by the process of mediatisation of consumption, and in particular, through the impact of electronic media (Arvidsson, 14). Media

Culture works as a force that is available to the entire North American culture, and consequently participates very prominently in the endorsement of common lifestyles and commodity consumption. The prominence of consumerism in North America creates considerable social exclusion for anyone that opts not to participate in the purchase of commodities. It is almost practically impossible, as product placement can be found in every major city on billboards, on television ads and even shows and movies themselves. North American society has been influenced by capitalism so far that, even with knowledge about the exploitation of the Global South in order to acquire commodities, ethics and moral values have been entirely tossed aside and replaced by social status and the value of owning material goods. To note how un-avoidable the endorsement of commodity consumption truly is, one can note the recession of 2008 having a somewhat dampening effect on consumerist messages. The recession years forced an immediate concern for employability and budget cuts. Consequently, less money was spent on media advertising and occasionally, messages of conspicuous consumption were toned down (McAllister, 291). Ironically, however, the recession encouraged a search for cheap promotion through digital media, and more specifically, social media: The increased role of PR in corporate marketing encouraged the aggressive use of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter to reach people directly as well as the placement of corporate-friendly ideas in traditional media system weakened by layoffs of professional media creators (McAllister, 291). As the internet has maintained to be one of, if not the most prominent facets to receive information, these social media sites have ostensibly sustained their role as participants in the advocacy of commodity consumption. Furthermore, as our economy, 5 years later, slowly starts to build itself back up, capitalists can benefit from these cheap promotional tactics as well as those which cost more money. North American society, though logically should be moving away from the irrational need to spend money on commodities, is in fact being pressured more and more towards partaking in the capitalist culture. As several authors, sociologists and anthropologists have noted, the chain effect of consumer capitalism has encouraged a subconscious desire or need for brands in North America. While years ago, where a person bought their groceries was irrelevant, today, the store you shop at along with the brand of foods you buy are what fundamentally determine a persons lifestyle. Purchasing no-name brands at a grocer such as No Frills labels a consumer quite differently than a person who buys all organic produce from Loblaws. In this respect, in can be noted how commodities essentially determine the well-being and status of a person. The inescapability of products and their societal correlation to a specific lifestyle means that capitalism will continue to prosper, as North American culture has now been rooted in the necessity of purchasing goods, or moreover, brands: it is not the products as much as

the brands that matter. Not so much the Hamburger as the McDonalds Hamburger, not so much the watch as the Rolex watch, not so much the stylish handbag as the Prada handbag (Arvidsson, 5). Massive companies have engineered a system which allows consumers to purchase whatever commodities they want for a low cost, and because the ownership of products has become such a vitality in North American society, people are not even cognitively aware of the horrific ethical circumstances in which all their products are being manufactured. It can only be assumed, conclusively, that the need to be viewed as wealthy, high-status, and well, trumps our cultures interest in political activism and respect. Undoubtedly, the capitalists controlling commodity consumption are well aware of which tricks will leave North Americans ignorant, and have been for quite some time.

Works Cited Arvidsson, Adam. Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture. Routledge. Oxon. 2006. Print Brown, Jenny. Whose Walmart? Our Walmart! Labor Notes. Labor Education and Research Project. Detroit. Vol. 390. 16,11. September 2011. McAllister, P. Matthew. No Logo Legacy. The Feminist Press at the City University of New York. Vol. 38. No. 3/4. 2010.

McGuigan, Jim. Naomi Klein, No Logo: taking aim at the brand bullies. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Routledge. Vol. 16, No. 1. 2010.