Consumerism, deconstructed

A snippet from a recent commercial: a young woman is at the office and her boss asks her, "How can you afford those brands on what I pay you?" The answer being "Burlington Coat Factory".

This is just wrong on so many levels. First, the emphasis is on the brand, not the coat. A brand is totally intangible, a status symbol, a piece of information... as opposed to a coat, which might keep a person warm and dry. It's assumed that the woman, her boss and the viewer all recognize the brands and acknowledge their status.

Second, there's the word "afford"... the brands are not ranked by utility or appearance, but by price. It's assumed that a more expensive brand has more status.

Third, there is a power relationship here, mediated by money. The boss sets the woman's salary, and sets it low enough to keep her in her place. But wait! By being a smart consumer, by "affording" a higher-status brand than the boss thinks she is entitled to, the woman is challenging the hierarchy! Two alpha consumers are battling it out for dominance, and Burlington Coat Factory is on the side of the challenger.

Then there is the assumption that the boss is actually impressed, instead of thinking "Jeez, what an ugly outfit! Where does she shop, Burlington Coat Factory?"

Finally, the commercial assumes that the office is the real world, that the job is real life, that employment is an authentic human relationship, and that impressing the boss is something that a normal person would bother with.

A Voluntary Simpleton would work just long enough to buy a nice warm coat at Wal-Mart, and that would be that.

---

Clarification: the boss is a woman. The coat picture is from the Burlington Coat Factory web site, not from the ad. If someone can find me a video of the ad itself, I'll link to it.