so I listened to the news conference this morning . . .
I have to say that the Bush team has been judicious. They seem like they really are willing to consult with others and see what Iraq's fate should be. Bravo.
Any one remember how back in the nineties we were always having these metaphorical wars? The Culture Wars, the Darwin Wars, The Science Wars, The Freud Wars.
I miss those days.
Now all we've got is real wars.
my life is phenomenally boring right now.
Finals are upon me and little thought should be given to other things.
I have been listening to christmas carols at work for the better part of a month.
And hey! we might be going to war any day now!
like, woo.
But I finished my term papers; one on middle eastern economic development, why it hasn't really happened; one on mirror left-right reversal why I think it is more a psychological phenomenon than an optical one.
Life with a girlfriend being in another town is very difficult right now. Not so much because of distance but because we both work and go to school. She's having troubles and I don't feel like I'm there enough for her.
Furthermore she will be moving to Turlock to enroll in the Cognitive Studies program there. I'm glad that she has settled on something but I think that the subject of my next few posts might be something like Turlock: Why Does it Smell so Bad? and Turlock: Where the Hell is it?
I will explain Turlock to you and why though it's no Escalon, it is no Modesto either?
Should I move with her to Turlock after my lease is up this year? Good question.
Thoughts on Ads
this was in answer to friends question on why firms advertise when it seems like they could save money if they don't. He wanted to know what classes he should take to learn about this.
As to your inquiry, the course catalog revealed a number of classes that would probably contain some of the information you would be looking for. I happen to be enrolled in an upper division econ course right now with some bearing (however slight) on your question.
There are lots of ways to look at social phenomena and the economic perspective is not always what people prefer. The resource economists have a class on marketing, ARE 140. One of my roommates is in it, but they seem mostly concerned with the supply side of advertising. Capturing a share of a market of consumers and so on. they talk about business us of marketing to increase demand and profits.
My own study indicates the following about advertising. Start with your question about coke and pepsi. These two advertise mainly to try differentiate themselves in the minds of consumers. The vast majority of us will pay the same price for either coke or pepsi. We are indifferent to them (I find myself in this category, I even like Rum & Pepsi on par with Rum & Coke). But if even a small percentage of the market is willing to pay as low as five cents more for (say) Coke then Coke will earn higher profits.
They earn higher profits not even by charging that additional 5 cents to that part of the population (though they may try to do that if there is a way). Since Coke and Pepsi are sold next to each other everywhere for the same price the part of the population that is willing to pay 5 cents more simply always buys coke.
Okay so that's why they advertise, but only part of the story. The rest of it comes in through the notion of a Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium (contrary to A Beautiful Mind) in this context is a point where no firm has an incentive to change his strategies given what he knows and doesn't know about what other firms are doing.
I spoke earlier about adertising increasing demand, but it doesn't always work. If coke and pepsi both spend the same amount on advertising then (assuming that gullibility is evenly distributed through the population) they will probably steal the same amount from each other, ceteris parebis. They only increase profits when one side doesn't advertise. The side that doesn't advertise loses profits so yer damn straight they both advertise.
If both firms choose not to advertise they probably would reduce their considerable advertising budget and make more profit. But both firms are too afraid that if they don't advertise the other will, so they both advertise. So the Nash equilibrium is one of lower profit for both. Too Much Coffee Man has put the point rather nicely
http://www.tmcm.com/comics/105_advertising.gif
So that's the minimalist picture of what a certian kind of advertising is about. The economic perspective is not alway what people are looking for nor the best.
The American Studies department offers a class on the american media, and the sociology department offers a lower division course on pop culture and an upper division course (apparently taught by a Dickens character, a fellow named Grindstaff) on mass communications which promises "to examine the relationship between the media and social structures. History of media-state relations. Emphasis on current european and pluralist theories rather than content analysis."
If you want my opinion this class is likely to contain a poorly presented gloss on the history of media-state relations backed up some astoundingly remote theoretical presentations and a few unsupported assertions that the media conspires to prop up the existing corporate government order by some or another unspecified means.
I must admit to a huge bias, even animosity towards this type of 'sociology'. Economists are frequently accused of practicing science from an armchair (and maybe with a snifter of brandy) but at least we have price and unemployment data to work with. Marxist and "European pluralist" theories are often so startlingly a priori that one gets the impression that the author has escaped from isolation only to be hired by the university to write some whacked out manifesto drossed up with elaborate prefix and suffix infused words like posthypertranstructuralist whatchamajigger.
So my answer is that there probably isn't any good classes on advertising. The American studies and sociology classes are probably uncut bullshit, and the econ courses are probably too minimalist for satisfaction.