Here is an excert describing what a lovemark is:

How Do I Know A Lovemark?

Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect – but there the similarities end.

Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever.

Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You don’t just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. That’s why you never want to let go.

Put simply, Lovemarks inspire “loyalty beyond reason”

People can nominate different “lovemarks” and others comment on how much they love them or show their loyalty etc.  Here is some peoples comments about moleskine notebooks (http://www.lovemarks.com/nomination/146):

•  
  • They Got Me!
  • I am guilty of loving Moleskine for no apparent reason other than I just love it. I feel that the quality is superior to other notebooks. Is it worth $18 for a notebook, probably not, but they got me! I spent $35 on Moleskine this week. They are a sleek design and have a nice feel.
  • AaronBMiller, – 11 April 2009
  • Exactly What I Need!
  • The truth is that I am crazy about any kind of notebooks. I feel I need it everywhere at any time no matter what I am doing: working, travelling, chatting, even shopping. I wander among different models never thinking about special brands and Lovemarks. Recenty I came across the Moleskine – that’s changed my mind. I realized that it is exactly what I need! Moleskine offers you fabulous and stylish notebooks! I already have one and I am excited!
  • Julia, Russian Federation – 18 December 2008
  • My Security Blanket
  • Moleskine is the only journal I will ever use. My first Moleskine was in 2006. I would be completely lost without the wonderful books. I don’t write as often as I would like, but just seeing it everyday in my bag is an immense comfort to me. I guess Moleskine is my security blanket.
  • ashley, – 05 December 2008
  • I’m Loving It!
  • More than a notebook, I can’t imagine travelling without my Moleskine. My Moleskine and my iPod are my obsession. I’m loving it!
  • Lara, Argentina – 25 November 2008
  • Won Me Over
  • I have been searching around for a 2009 diary for the following year. My friend mentioned this Moleskine Diary she was itching to have and recomended it so much that we set a date to go get one each. The day before I encountered an old friend who had one. I skipped through hers and felt let down about what my friend had told me about it. Yes, it had beautiful smooth edges. Off white paper, simple design but it did not scream ‘buy me’. That night I set off on my date, deciding that I would end up finding something more colourful and vibrant, more me. When we reached the bookshelf my mind changed completely. The first thing I noticed is the way the book marketed itself as a Lovemark. It was not just a diary. It was a place for you to impress your feelings, ideas, sketches, discoveries and perceptions on paper. The second, the history leaflet inside which associated Picasso and Van Gogh with itself. The third was that it was crafted for me. Handmade but replaceable with any sign of fault. Lastly the small thank you at the end which spoke to me and allowed me to feel as I was in the process of making such a beautiful design. All I can say is that wee booklet inside won me over. I HEART MOLESKINE DIARIES.
  • kisskissbangbang, – 22 November 2008
  • Makes Me Want To Create
  • Yesterday I got my own Moleskine. A funny thing – it makes me want to create something. To write a note, a thought, a quote, to draw, even though I cannot draw. I wonder – how long will it last? How long this true magic will last?
  • Katrin, Russian Federation – 08 October 2008

Packard, V. (1961). The Status Seekers. Penguin Books. Middlesex.
1.  “Many other experts in home selling have recently cited “snob appeal” as one of the great secret weapons.   One strategy, he said, is to drop some French phrases into your advertisements.” (Page 61)
The comment is interesting because it suggests that people like to set apart as better than anyone else and will buy into this idea.  The use of French words involves people that speak French, the language of a high class city and a language that high class citizens may take at university to increase their status.
This is talked about as a ‘secret weapon’, as it is very subtle and would not really attract a large audience, but on that token, the small class group would have much more to spend than the general middle class society.

2. “We have, then, a two-dimensional class system.  The horizontal levels are based on prestige deriving principally from such social class factors as wealth, job, education, and style of life.  The vertical divisions are based on the seeming differentness of people caused by their ethnic background, their religion, etc.” (Page 57)
This sums up how Packard divides the different types of class so it is a clear description.  From what I understand, the horizontal levels are things that can be changed, although it make take a lot of determination and hard work, particularly those in lower classes, whereas the vertical levels seem very hard, if not impossible to change.  Ethnic background is something that cannot be changed, and with regards to religion it seems many follow the religion they were brought up in, and sometimes severe consequences could come if they do not follow their family’s beliefs, but ultimately this can be changed.

3.  “Researchers for the Chicago Tribune, exploring the attitudes of people in the semi elite suburb they studied, summed up the prevailing attitude toward homes in this way: ‘You have to look successful.  A house is a very tangible symbol of success… and the residents regard it as a goal and a symbol, as well as something to live in.” (Page 63)
This refers to the house being more than just a place to live, but as a place to exhibit your wealth to all.  People’s desire is to make their house look as expensive as possible from what others see of it, for example; what is visible from the street, entrance way, and lounge/dining room, all that may be seen by visitors and passers by.
This point also talks about the goal of that people generally aspire to having their dream house, as this is an aspect of their life they can parade to others.  I would suggest that this goal belongs to people of all classes but is taken further by those in a higher class.

4.  “A sixteen year old boy from a limited-success family was invited to attend a dance for young folks at a yacht club on the New York England coast.  His mother was thrilled and bought him a new blue serge suit for the occasion.  The boy spent a miserable evening.  Every boy at the dance except himself was wearing khakis and an old sports jacket.  Among the yacht-club set this casual uniform was de rigueur. (Page 123)
Sometimes people can feel out of place because they feel they are a class about everyone else, which can exclude them.  Packard goes on to talk about how many high class men dress down for the weekend while working class people will dress up to shop or even go for a walk.
I recently heard someone say that many well-dressed graphic designers will dress down for a business meeting with clients because it is expected that they are the ‘creative’ people who should stand out from everyone else. 

5.  ”The people who ask us back to dinner are almost always those who regard us as approximate equals in social prestige.  I’m referring here to the social evenings that are relaxed and spontaneous.  For better or for worse, most people feel more at ease with their own kind.”  (Page 150)
Generally people would most likely spend time with people who they feel are equal to them self. When a person hangs out with someone who is considered a lower class, they can be ashamed to be seen with them, yet a person hanging out with someone of a higher class would feel a lot of pressure to impress the other person, therefore cannot relax and have a good time.
This also is true in dating relationships; it is generally common that two people dating have a similar level of attraction and wealth.  I think this is for the same reasons I just stated about feeling most comfortable with your own ‘kind’.

Watch clip:

1.  Enchantment consists in a mixed bodily state of joy and disturbance, a transitory sensuous condition dense and intense enough to stop you in your tracks and toss you onto new terrain, to move you from the actual world to its virtual possibilities.  I found this point interesting, as I have never thought of enchantment as a mix of two states, such opposite as Bennett states here.  In thinking about it further I have come to the conclusion that enchantment is made up of wonder and a sense that the future is not known, which relates to this state of disturbance that is mentioned.

 2.  At the same time, animations can delight — perhaps for the same sensory reasons that a kaleidoscope does: metamorphoses of shape, color, size, and arrangement of form capture the imagination.  This article talks about the use of animation (specifically in a TV commercial for GAP khaki pants) and how the use of animation can get across the idea of enchantment.  The comment Bennett says makes sense to me, as I am amused by beautiful shows of colour and movement, such as a kaleidoscope or screen saver, as is most humans, which is why this idea is taken into advertising.

3.     Can the enchanting potential of animation survive commercialization? Can advertisements qualify as sites of the ethically-useful kind of enchantment I seek? And even if they can, should we not seek our enchantments elsewhere?  I stopped at this comment mainly because it confused me.  From what I understand it alludes the question, is the use of enchantment in the media going to amuse us long term or is it going to be something that the media will exhaust to a point where we will become immune to the feelings of enchantment being presented to us?

4.     There’s no doubt that some kind of enchantment is the goal of advertising, and that many people in rich societies are caught up with consuming.  This point seems very obvious, I think in most, if not all, well off societies, that consuming is very present.  People are always wanting to be associated with products that will life others opinions of them, and give them the image shown in advertising.  I just had an interesting thought because I know that when you buy a product you do not get the lifestyle shown in its advertising, but the thing is others may still associate this lifestyle with you and think you do have that advertised lifestyle.

5.     I am an advocate of this environmentalist critique and support political efforts to reconstruct the economic infrastructure that demands continually increasing levels of consumption and waste. I saw how easily this infrastructure overpowers individual efforts toward ecological living while in a Wal-Mart store: the “REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE” banner hung above the check-out aisles could only be a joke inside a warehouse crammed with thousands of low-priced and ultimately disposable “goods.”  This point is funny that Wal-Mart can promote the clean green society when in fact their store is filled with disposable goods that will all end up in the dump.  Yet despite this, I’m sure that more people that not, will begin to associate Wal-Mart with the clean green image and not challenge it in their mind.  They will mindlessly accept what is put in front of them. 

“There’s no doubt that some kind of enchantment is the goal of advertising, and that many people in rich societies are caught up with consuming. Popular and academic critics agree that consumption structures much in everyday life, including identities, aspirations and imaginations. One influential interpretation of this social fact condemns it as “commodity fetishism,” the idolatry of consumption goods. Commodity fetishism is a kind of perceptual disorder: humans become blind to the pain and suffering embedded in the commodity by virtue of an unjust and exploitative system of production, even as commodities — mere things — appear as active agents capable of commanding attention and determining desire.”

Bennett, J. (2001). Commodity Fetishism and Commodity Enchantment. para 8. Retreived from Project Muse database.

Fetishism is idolising something or obsessing over it. When we talk about commodity fetishism it is to idolise a product, or at least the ideas or image associated with that product as portrayed to us through advertising. Consumers form loyaltys to products such as people define themselves as either a Coke person or a Pepsi person, or a McDonalds person and not a Burger King person etc. In most cases it is not really the taste that is of little difference but we have bought into the associated image and become loyal to the product. This idea seems kind of ridiculous because if we decide to go for Pepsi one day instead of the usual Coke, Coke isnt going to get offended! The loyalty is entirely one way because Coke does not care about the individual when the individual may idolise Coke. We begin to think that we have a relationship with the product but dont notice that this relationship only goes one way.

In the reading ‘Exploring Visual Culture – The Rhetoric of Visual Artifacts’ that i have previously posted about it says:

“In the era of mass industrial production commodities lose their distinctiveness, but fetishism endows them with an aura as if they were unique; although we know that this car, this suit, or this bottle of perfume is one of many identical copies, we still behave towards commodities we own as if they were more than this.”

I found this intersting that sometimes we buy into products so we can be unique but we are really just falling into the advertisers way to sell a mass produced object.

One last point. This relates to both the last part of the quote i started this post with (“humans become blind to the pain and suffering embedded in the commodity by virtue of an unjust and exploitative system of production, even as commodities — mere things — appear as active agents capable of commanding attention and determining desire”) and the following quote from ‘The Rhetoric of Visual Artifacts’ reading:

“In other words, we blank out knowledge of how the artefact came to be produced, thereby fetishing the commodity, as if it had a life of its own”

This made me think of the time I bought some Nike sneakers. It was common knowledge that Nike’s are made in less than optimal working conditions, ie sweat shops, and this was definately not something I wanted to have any part in so I just tried to forget about this as I purchased my shoes, buying the idea that Nike’s advertising produced rather than buying the history of the shoe.

From Reading

•  The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production” (Marx-Engels 1976a.5.59).
  It is interesting that the production of goods is related to producing thoughts of the working class.
  This makes me think of the fact that in most cases the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I think this is a valid observation of the world we live in today, and although efforts are being made for the rich to help the poor the rich are still getting richer even if they donate some of their earnings to the poor.
  The point made mainly refers to the idea that the people on control of things generating money are also in control of the working classes views towards their work and general outlook on life. Many companies spend a lot of money on having workspaces that ‘relax’ their staff so they have a more enjoyable work day, or this is what the workers are made to believe. The more pleasant work space is more likely payed for buy the company so that staff will end up working more or at least getting more done.
•  This emphasis on persuasion in ideology implies that one’s opponents’ needs, desires, and values are not simply ignored, they are somehow redefined or mystified in terms acceptable to those opponents or shown to be by their nature “impossible” of fulfilment.
  Setting impossible goals somehow gives hope to people who really do not have anything to aspire to if they will be working in a factory their whole life.
  This comment talks of persuasion rather than force. I think this is done to create a positive mindset instead of workers feeling like they are treated as robots, when actually the workers are being brainwashed into a group that doesn’t speak out, and just do what they are told to do.
•  Ambiguity is, therefore, a central feature of a dominant ideology since, as noted by Jameson above, it is designed to sustain the positive self-conception of the dominant group and, at the same time, to co-opt, silence, or neutralize the perceived opposition.
  Avoiding the key issues is used to mask the truth.
  This point feeds on from the previous point, about masking the truth by not fully explaining situations or giving hazy descriptions of what is going on. If the dominant class is ambiguous then the working class can not oppose ideas as they would not really be sure what they are opposing. This comment says that ambiguity is a central feature of ideology and I agree that without the ambiguity the working class would more easily be able to revolt against the dominant class so it is skilfully use so silence them.