That is the message of a successful advertising campaign. Patek Philippe is easily selling all the watches it allocates to the American market, where, says a Texas jewelry-store owner, people ““are coming in and asking for the watch in the ad.’’ This is worth pondering because advertising generally works not when it changes society’s mind but rather when it conforms to society’s thinking.
The ads appear in magazines read by people who, to say no more, know where their next meal is coming from–magazines like Forbes, Town & Country, Architectural Digest and NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL. One version features a photograph from the rear of the rear–the photo is cropped just above his waist–of a man seated on a piano bench. Beneath the bench dangle the legs of a child in pajamas. The child is sitting on the man’s lap, evidently playing on the keyboard. The text of the ad reads:
““Begin your own tradition.
““Whatever innovations Patek Philippe introduce, every watch is still crafted by hand . . . . And because of the exceptional workmanship, each one is a unique object. Which is perhaps why some people feel that you never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation.''
In another ad three generations of blond females are in the back seat of a car, and in ecstasy. Mother and grandmother, both looking vivacious, flank a winsome girl who is blowing bubbles, delighting the other two. The text says:
““Begin your own tradition.
““Every Patek Philippe watch is crafted by hand. So each one is subtly different from the next. That is what makes it uniquely personal to its owner. The ladies’ Golden Ellipse ref. 4831 has 160 of the finest diamonds set in 18 karat solid gold. Any woman who owns one will treasure it, enhancing its true value for the one who wears it next.''
Get it? Spending more than $8,000 for a flashy watch–the Golden Ellipse costs $15,000–may be a pleasure, but certainly not a tacky pleasure, or only a pleasure. It also is an act of altruism, of responsible stewardship regarding a tradition. In short, it is . . . family values.
This, according to a Forbes news story on the advertising campaign, is what a deep thinker about social trends calls ““conditional hedonism.’’ Cheryl Russell, who writes Boomer Report, puts it in perspective: ““Family history and heirlooms become increasingly important in life, particularly when parents start dying, and that’s exactly the situation a lot of boomers are in right now.’’ (““Could become an heirloom,’’ says the Lands’ End catalogue about . . . a handmade cableknit sweater.)
Wouldn’t you know that the baby boom generation, which has pioneered new dimensions of narcissism and self-approval, would find a way to flatter itself by presenting conspicuous consumption as an activity of high-mindedness and social responsibility, like recycling soda cans or mailing a check to Planned Parenthood. And this has a political dimension, in light of the history of greed, as currently understood.
Greed, like other forms of disagreeableness, entered the world when Adam and Eve were disobedient. Still, through the centuries the human race had its moral ups as well as downs, producing, on the up side, such exemplary people as Soc- rates and Saint Francis and Adlai Ste- venson. But at noon on Jan. 20, 1981, there began a big down: the Reagan Era of Greed.
It was terrible. Young men started wearing red suspenders and selling one another junk bonds, and even government employees got caught up in the dark spirit of the times–became, so to speak, victims of the Reagan Era of Greed. When authorities finally caught on to the spying that Aldrich Ames had begun doing for money during the 1980s, NEWSWEEK explained that ““greed was a national pastime in the mid-’80s.''
Because the Reagan Era of Greed was replaced by something kinder and gentler at noon on Jan. 20, 1989, and especially because the White House has been scrubbed clean of Republicans since Jan. 20, 1993, it is important to understand that it is theoretically impossible for coarse materialism or other wretched excess to be at work in America today. Granted, there is a brisk business in Patek Philippe watches, $1,600 HermEs handbags, $600 Gucci boots, $2,000 Chanel suits and Porsches and Mercedes-Benzes. But only superficial people will be misled by the superficial resemblance to the bad old days, as The Washington Post’s Margaret Webb Pressler explains:
““This market has evolved from the “greed-is-good’ era 1980s, when well-to-do consumers wanted glitzy products to show off their new wealth. Now, the emphasis is on traditional brand names that connote quality.''
You do see the difference, don’t you? As Pressler notes, ““Glitz is out; quality is in.’’ In the morally improved 1990s, customers want brands which, ““although wildly expensive, convey extremely high quality and a sense of timelessness.’’ For example, a Patek Philippe watch ““doesn’t shout a message of status; rather, it’s a quiet statement to a more discerning group of people.’’ Retailers and analysts tell Pressler that spending ““is not as showy or status-conscious as it was in the 1980s. People who can afford luxury goods still want to have something that sets them apart, but they don’t want or need to advertise it the way they 1used to.''
That is, unlike in the Reagan Era of Greed, people now want to be set apart, but tastefully, and as custodians of heirlooms for the rising generations of altruists. You do see the difference, don’t you?
