In the article “Bumper to Bumper” by Giddings, he comments on the wide use of ribbons on vehicles. Giddings refers to another article “Consumed” by Rob Walker; Walker believes that the ribbons make a declaration about what kind of person has a ribbon on their car. So who cares if your yellow ribbon says that you support our troops. Could it be that those who ride around with their magnetic bows on their cars are saying “I have a husband, wife, son, daughter or a family member who is out there protecting yours and my freedom.
The real economics behind this “yellow ribbon magnet” affair is that someone came up with the idea that a yellow ribbon symbolizes our support for the troops and created a demand for it. This demand is making money for several companies. These five dollar “hot” items have made both consumers and business people alike happy. Isn’t that how our economy should be? It’s not a matter of a particular statement a person it trying to make. It’s about capitalizing off of something the public wants.
2 comments:
The benefit of the yellow ribbons has a much greater economic impact than any of us realize. Not only are the companies that market these cheap magnets making a bundle of money, but the war itself is being publicized by making the statement of supporting the troops. I beleive the economic impact that that may have is almost immeasureable. By the way the money from these yellow ribbons should be donated to families who have lost their loved ones because of the war.
This is a really cool post - it's one of those "who knew there was economics here" things.
One thing that's going on is that the idea of using a ribbon systematically (faux or real) reduces the marginal cost for the ribbon-wearer to get their point across to others. For example, you don't have to wear a t-shirt with big type saying "I care about yada yada yada" if everyone knows what your yellow or pink ribbon means.
Secondly, the makers of both cloth ribbons for shirts and magnetic ones for cars have made them cheap as well. Again, this reduces the marginal cost to the wearer of sending that message.
I think this also points to a flaw in Salty's comment - might it not be honorable just to provide a cheaper way for people to express those sentiments? The others follow this lead to push for donations of profits from selling these things, and I think that's a bit naive. If you've made it easier for other people to send their message, and they have gotten an increased consumer surplus out of that, then how are you obligated to donate your surplus? What I'm driving at is that by making these things available cheaply, the producers are actually the first people in the chain doing a good deed. It would be a good deed even if no one bought them. So, the argument that they should donate their profits is saying that because you did a good deed, that helped other people do a good deed, you should have any benefits you made taken away (because this is related to some other nasty situation). This is sort of like fuming at the driver in front of you who stopped to let a boy scout help a senior citizen across the street. We all do that occassionally, but just because it is common doens't make it right.
P.S. Remember to take your magnetic ribbon off your car before you go in the car wash.
Post a Comment