Selling the American Pie: Goodbye, Middle Class

I came across an article from one of my new favorite websites, Too Much, about changes going on around Madison Avenue, known as the Advertising Capital of the World. The article, entitled, "Madison Ave. Declares ‘Mass Affluence’ Over," is about how the ad industry's leading magazine, Ad Age, declared that marketing appeals to the "middle class"--people with stable incomes between $50,000-$200,000 (loosely defined)--is not the future of advertising. Marketing looks to become something catering only to the "rich"--those making over $200,000 a year.

Here's what I think is most shocking about this:

"Targeting this $100,000 to $200,000 cohort, the new Ad Age report contends, no longer makes particularly good marketing sense. These consumers don’t “feel rich” today and won’t likely “graduate into affluence later on.”

Only under-35s who make between $100,000 and $200,000, says Ad Age, will likely make that graduation. This under-35 “emerging” tier will have “a far greater chance of eventually crossing the golden threshold of $200,000 than those who achieve household income of $100,000 later in life."

Now I don't disagree with the article's sentiment--that this is a sad realization in the most powerful economy on earth. But I do have to raise a different point--that appealing to the rich (or I'd even call anyone over $200K annually "super-rich") is still marketing to the middle and poorer classes.


The most reviled idea in our great country (and I still believe it is a great country) is the pursuit of the "American Dream," which can range from financial stability to absolute wealth. It's the picket fence, the two-car garage, the 2.5 children running around the backyard (where's the half?). It's vacations, it's happiness, and it's stability.

And jealousy breeds pursuit. Jonesing for the Jones' stuff.

But it, above all, has changed dramatically since the 1950's, when it seems to have been cooked up in our collective conscience. Now it's more material (thanks, Madonna) and physical (thanks, Olivia Newtown-John)--the pure signs of wealth and well-to-do-ness being badges of honor and pride.

For many lower income folks, achieving one or a few of these "signs" is a goal that leaves others baffled: why would you buy rims for your car? Why don't you use the money you spent on that motorcycle to do something better? Why did you buy that platinum necklace?

Unfortunately for many people in poverty, advertising--and we are seeing more and more ads these days--just drive the consumer in all of us to feel like 'crap.' And not only is consumerism making us feel like 'crap,' but it separates the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'/'never haves' in ways that may drive the 'vitriol' of contemporary political debates. And that doesn't equate to fixing the most essential system to equity in our coutnry--public education.

Additionally, when you're told your entire life that you're worthless, you're poor, you're not as important--you just need something to make yourself feel more worthy, less poor, and important--even if it is just to a salesman or someone passing you on the street.

As the income gap grows (and it is growing), we as a society, nation, government, and economy have to ask--do we want this to just be accepted? I understand that questioning the pursuit of the almighty dollar makes me a full-fledged Communist (not my words), but do we value unlimited amounts of wealth concentrated in just a few? Or do we want to "let justice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."

While some starve, others are feasting on the American Pie. We need to do better for our fellow coutnrymen.