The "New Family" Market

Free topic does not equal free blog points. Despite my initial reaction to this assignment, I had a hard time choosing what to blog about. However, with my group project in mind, I decided to delve deeper into the psyche of the “new family” market segment.

Some traits that set this segment apart from others are their buying habits and powerful influence. Because they are inexperienced at providing for other family members, new parents tend to spend more money on impulse purchases. They are especially cautious when it comes to their children.

As a result, new parents are less price sensitive when it comes to “name brands” for staple goods such as diapers or baby food. Mom and Dad are influential because their children are learning right and wrong for the first time between the ages of 2 and 5. Kids are likely to imitate their parents in many ways, from the way they communicate to the way they shop. Ultimately, when an advertiser convinces a young parent to buy his brand, he is getting a 2-for-1 deal. College students (making purchase decisions for the first time) are more likely to buy the same brand their parents bought for products such as toothpaste, laundry detergent, and shampoo.

I am currently studying a number of theories about group behavior in a class called “Advanced Issues in a Multicultural Society.” In dissecting the traits of the young family segment, I found several of these theories applicable.

For instance, with the previously mentioned 2-for-1 concept in mind, advertisers have had great success employing rationale from the Distinctiveness Theory. The theory states that members of a particular group look for traits that make them distinct from other groups. When some type of media, say an ad in a popular magazine, touches on one of these distinct traits it appeals more to members of the group. Mothers in particular have been targeted lately with maternal products discreetly placed in tabloids and fashion magazines.

The Polarized Appraisal Theory is also prevalent among members of the young family segment. This theory states that members of a particular group are more critical of their own members than of those outside their group. New parents are often overprotective of their children (after taking classes and reading books on health and safety) and may look down on parents with dissimilar practices. For instance, a mother who is careful to coat her child with sunscreen before he is allowed to go swimming is likely to be critical of the mother beside her who disregards this precaution. She may confront the other mom or at least explain her disapproval to other group members like her husband or neighbors. Together they take pride in their safety awareness and sacrificing for their children. This sort of in-group satisfaction is characteristic of both the Categorization and Identification Theories which state that members of a group are united by things they have in common.

Art to Market

Whenever I’m asked what my dream job would be, the first thing that comes to mind is an artist. Aside from the fact that I love to draw and create, there are several perks to this career. The way I envision it, artists get to do whatever they want. I would set my own hours, travel frequently, and get paid immensely. “Project Research” could consist of a lavish trip to Italy or sailing across the Atlantic. I could “look for inspiration” anywhere I choose and make money in the process. Of course the trick to all of this is being able to sell ones work at ridiculous prices. For this reason I will research the science of selling artwork. I will attempt to gain insight into the minds of both customers and dealers so I may discover what affects pricing and how to give value to my own creations.

There are few businesses in which a manufacturer can sell their goods with no correlation or even consideration for expense. However, what cost one artist $30 to paint could sell for $30,000. Inversely, another artist may spend thousands of dollars creating a “masterpiece” and find himself unable to sell it. So who decides what is “art” and what isn’t? I’ve been to museums that feature Crayola scribbles on canvas and wondered, “What makes them better than me?” Does it come down to explaining the significance of each brushstroke? Does one need to establish a reputation first? Did I need to get some kind of formal training to do this right? My list of questions goes on and on.

In hope of finding some answers I looked to the web. My Google Scholar search turned up several helpful articles that plan on referring to in my final paper. However, the most important piece I found was a book titled High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market, by Stuart Plattner. This anthropological study seemed to fit my situation perfectly.

The author grew up wanting to be an artist, with talent and support from everyone around him. He even took his interest a step further, going to art school and finding a job in commercial art. However, he found his passion was cheapened when it was directed and sold. Plattner went on to study anthropology and ultimately used this perspective to study artists in his local community. The book investigates the paradox of putting a price-tag on art and the resulting conflicts of artists on psychological and economic levels.

Rough Citation:
Plattner, Stuart. High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sI-AXDAtsCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=selling+artwork&ots=GQwH9_Ab1U&sig=L1qnX6mP76yaVtnPeOF9GjpVq60