Socioeconomics, Advertising, and the Comparative Advantage

I was really fascinated by this article about the survey conducted by Freedman and Jurafsky. I am familiar with many of the principles of marketing, but I don't usually think of it in the context of comparative goods, like two different brands/qualities of chips. Freedman/Jurafsky's hypothesis was that more expensive or cheaper chips were marketed to higher level or lower level socioeconomic classes, respectively. They were particularly interested in the use of language in the advertising and package labeling.

To conduct this survey, they first created several overall categories by which they might assess the brands of chips. First, "High-falutin" language. Did the bags have complicated vocabulary describing the chips themselves? Second, health. Were the chips full of preservatives, deep fried, or organic? Third, distinction. Did the packaging make any claims about their chips as compared to others, any unique attributes? Fourth and finally, authenticity. Do the chips have any connection to a traditional value, such as unique cooking method or spices indigenous to a certain location?

The studied found that the more expensive brands of chips used lots of positive comparative language about the "naturalness/ingredients of expensive chips" versus the language about the "historicity/locality in inexpensive chips." As it would appear, if this is any indicator, a more affluent consumer is more concerned about the ingredients and process behind the chips they are eating, while a less affluent either doesn't care about quality and gets it because it is the cheapest option, or they want a chip that is traditionally made and is from a longstanding producer.

I really thought this was a great example for such a study. Most people like chips, even if just a little bit. In a free market, there are likely to be many, many options to choose from. Some consumers buy what they can afford, and some can afford to buy whatever they like and will find the healthiest or most exotic chip because that is their main purpose in buying it in the first place. I think it is very interesting that they mentioned Bourdieau's theory that some people like one thing for the sole reason that it is not something else; some people buy the expensive chip because it is NOT the cheapest one, regardless of its taste.

I think this is a very transferrable study. Comparative goods are the reason marketing exists. I think clothes could also be a good item for this study, as well. Clothes' most basic purpose is to cover our bodies, so the cheapest, dollar store t shirt is serving the same basic purpose as a designer shirt that costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It is always interesting to see how taste defines our decisions, but sometimes there are factors beyond just taste that define the food that we eat.