The basis of this thought stems from a conversation about the "spat" between Anthony Bourdain and Paula Dean. Someone stated that they were glad that Anthony Bourdain had called Paula Dean out on her "crappy" food and that she "thinks too highly of herself" and really wasn't the "world renown chef" that she touts herself to be.
To be honest, I've never eaten Paula Dean's cooking, so the food might be "crappy" but that, in my opinion, is besides the point. What she has done is marketed herself the same way Anthony Bourdain has, the only difference that I can tell is she has been more successful at it and that is what rubs certain people the wrong way. The better than thou, everyone is too damn dumb to know whats good for them, Bourdain is better so he deserves to be more successful than Paula Dean, crowd.
Again, I've haven't eaten Anthony Bourdain's cooking either, so he might be just as "crappy" as Paula Dean, but we're going to look at this in merely an economic way.
Why does Paula Dean have more apparent success? Mass appeal of southern cooking and a motherly/grandmotherly type of persona whereas Bourdain's appeal is limited to more of a high scale New York bistro, socialite atmosphere with a tinge of rock the boat attitude.
Now, which crowd watches more TV and which crowd checks the "Food Critics Corner" before deciding where to dine? I'm sure you can answer that one without any help.
While a mass marketed product is generally homogenized to appeal to the majority of tastes, it also contributes to larger employment levels, larger wealth accumulation, and a larger chance for competition. Take the following companies and their signature products for example.
1) Ford Motor Co and the Model-T
2) Coca Cola
3) Levis
4) Nike
5) McDonalds
Every single one of those companies started out in a competitive niche, but they expanded by making their products appeal to the largest base of consumers. The Model T wasn't the best car available by any means, but it was priced to be affordable by using mass production assembly lines. Having a massive PR campaign also helped. The other companies on the list used similar means to become world renown for their products. The companies initial products were actually of mediocre quality, as compared with today's standards, but it was consumers changing tastes and fierce competition from companies in the same niche market that facilitated better standards on quality and amenities.
The initial question was, "Does mediocrity encourage competition?", and with some logical thinking we have found that mediocrity could encourage competition in a free market, but what would happen if that market were over regulated? Would an over regulated market encourage more or less competition? Would a new company have an easier or harder chance at success? Would a new company, or even a company that has a weakened financial standing, even be able to afford the cost to comply with over regulation?
The answer to those question is: No.
Over regulation allows large companies to get even larger, it inhibits new companies from selling at a competitive price, and it prevents established companies from restructuring to become more profitable.
OK, back to the "spat" between Anthony Bourdain and Paula Dean.
If the market were to be regulated to where Anthony Bourdain was to be more successful than Paula Dean, the average person couldn't justify the cost of saffron to put into a dish, much less the cuts of meats that Anthony Bourdain uses. Looking at this in a different way, what would be the big deal if he's successful if the average person can only look at the dish longingly and not be able to create it themselves.
Don't get this wrong and think that I'm against hoity-toity elitist chefs or other hoity-toity products, because I see it as another form of competition against mediocrity. Consumers need those services and products as a way improving the mediocre, mass produced crap that we can afford.
The Model T cars were affordable enough to start a mass demand for an automobile that continues today where almost everyone owns car. If it had been today's Bentley or Lamborghini, a lot of people would still be in horse drawn wagons. The average consumer is demanding that the cheapest car have the same features that the higher priced have and companies naturally want to sell so they change the product.
This mindset is directed to almost every product available and as long as there is a free market to encourage it, the crappy, mediocre products will always get better.
0 comments