I believe that trust in mass commercial media varies from country to country. In some places, governments implement censorship and abuse their control over mass media. When this influence becomes apparent to people, and they start understanding that the reality they are trying to be convinced of is significantly distorted, their trust starts to decrease. Still, in countries where sources of information are relatively independent, the trust is more attached to specific media companies as their control of them is not centered in the hands of elites or authorities. I do not think that in such countries, it is possible to have people perceive all commercial mass media outlets as one in terms of trust towards them.
Yet, when talking about places where mass media is not independent, there is definitely unified trust in television or mass media in general. A great example is provided in Antonio Castillo’s article “Breaking Democracy: Venezuela’s Media Coup,” where he talks about the political violence, misinformation, and propaganda through Venezuelan television, which was controlled by the country’s oligarchy at that moment (Castillo, 2003). Most people, after these events, were confident that the information provided by commercial mass media was controlled by the oligarchy. It means that there is a logical connection between these two events, as people were given one-sided, false information and their trust in the media decreased. I believe there is a similar situation in modern Russia, where many people still trust political propaganda on TV. Nevertheless, when the real lives of ordinary citizens keep getting worse, and the lies on TV keep becoming more explicit, it is inevitable that the trust of people in mass media will decline. However, propaganda is a powerful weapon that requires time to become immune to.
Reference
Castillo, A. (2003) Breaking Democracy: Venezuela’s Media Coup. Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 103, 145-156.
Households And Consumer Behaviors
There are many ways in which households have changed in the past 50 years. People today are getting married much older, and although divorce rates had risen significantly by the early 1990s, there has since been a decreasing tendency. Because of the rise in divorce rates, there are many more single-parent households nowadays. In addition, there are more households of same-sex couples and single-person households, and the number of blended families has also increased due to a higher divorce rate.
Consumer behavior models and approaches are relevant in these diverse household structures because what people buy and where is influenced by their family members, the type of household they have, and their role in it. An example of a new tendency in modern households is the preference to stay at home instead of going to a restaurant, a movie theater or any other place. Therefore, products and services that ‘fit’ today’s households are those that appeal to family members’ comfort zones (Hawkins et al., 2020). Some examples of these are food delivery, online clothing stores, and various streaming services. On the other hand, services that fail to meet the realities of household living can be exemplified by businesses that do not manage to make customers’ interaction with service providers an effortless, easy-going experience.
One of the major changes that have affected consumers’ purchasing habits is the increase in single-person households. Thus, studies have shown that people living alone “have the weakest purchasing power of all household types” because they tend to have a lower income compared to couple households (Hodgson, 2019, par. 3). The opportunities for marketers in relation to single households can include targeting these households directly with strategies that might interest live-alone buyers; for example, multi-buy purchases are unlikely to attract them, while price cuts might.
References
Hawkins, D. I., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Susan Bardi Kleiser. (2020). Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy. Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Hodgson, A. (2019). How Single Homes Affect Consumer Spending Trends. Euromonitor. Web.
Eating Patterns: People-Eating And Insect-Eating
One of the main reasons for the differences in eating patterns that can be found in the world is of an environmental and ecological nature. In particular, Harris (1985) emphasizes that differences in eating habits are attributed not to cultural differences but to cost and benefit considerations. In this case, it is precisely the restraints and opportunities offered by the environment for choosing food that have a special influence. Thus, the main hypothesis is that people-eating or insect-eating, which is not characteristic of Western society, comes from an economic or practical necessity.
In this case, an interesting example is why, according to the author, warfare cannibalism which was practiced by Aztecs, is not acceptable in modern society. It is economically and practically beneficial for contemporary governments to use vanquished people for activities for work. In particular, this is due to the fact that before the emergence of the state, smaller entities did not have an effective system for the use of enslaved people, which made cannibalism more cost-effective. Regarding insect-eating, which is more developed in African and Asian countries, Harris (1985) emphasizes that this is due to environmental factors. There are simply more different types of insects in the area due to the humid and warm climate, which makes their use the most beneficial.
Thus, people-eating and insect-eating have prevailed or are currently prevailing in certain societies due to the established culture. However, in earlier periods, this choice of food was dictated by purely practical needs. It was important for people to extract the maximum amount of protein and energy from food, which made it beneficial to use the most available sources. In turn, this aspect was determined precisely by the structure of the environment and natural sources of food.
Reference
Harris, M. (1985). Good to eat: Riddles of food and culture. Simon and Schuster.