TIMOTHY DE WAAL MALEFYT

Research Articles

Understanding the Rise of Consumer

Ethnography: Branding Technomethodologies
in the New Economy

ABSTRACT In this article, I aim to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the changing public role of anthropology by exploring
the rise of branded ethnographic practices in consumer research. I argue that a juncture in the “New Economy”—the conjoining of
corporate interest in branding, technology, and consumers, with vast social changes—may explain the rapid growth of ethnography
for consumer research and predict its future direction. An analysis of branded propaganda from ethnographic vendors that claim
their technology-enhanced methods innovate “classic” anthropological practices discloses the way corporations employ technologically
mediated means to focus on the reflexive self in consumer research. In this analysis, I reveal that technological methodologies are
central to the production of branded ethnographic practices, as forms of branding and technology legitimate consumer–corporate flows
of interaction. The conclusion raises awareness to the ways in which modern branding practices reconstruct anthropology in public
discourse. [Keywords: branding, consumer research, ethnography, reflexivity, technology]

T HE LAST FEW DECADES have witnessed a bur-

geoning rise in the application of ethnography for
design, marketing, and consumer research. Popular press
sumers are now a “hot topic” for research and film doc-
umentaries (Belk 2006:193). Ethnography is perceived by
corporations to be more innovative than traditional focus
articles have widely celebrated anthropology, and partic- groups for more deeply probing consumer attitudes, behav-
ularly ethnography, as a new business tool to gain insight ior, and lifestyles (Zukin 2004:110). The explosive growth
into consumers’ lives (Ante 2006; Garza 1991; Gomes 2006; of ethnography in consumer research has reached a level
Kane 1996; Miller 1990; Tischler 2004). Ethnography has wherein many Fortune 100 corporations regularly employ
also risen in the field of design studies (Squires and Byrne ethnographic approaches (Sunderland and Denny 2007:
2002; Wasson 2000). Ethnography appeals to designers for 25). In the 1990s, a few advertising firms began in-agency
revealing discrepancies between designers’ intended prod- ethnographic departments (Sherry 1995:25), a practice that
uct use and consumers’ actual everyday use (Wasson 2000: has since expanded to include large traditional agencies
377–378). In marketing, anthropology has been used to such as Batton, Barton, Durstine and Osborn (BBDO), Ogi-
understand brand image and social symbolism (Baba 1986; lvy and Mather, and Doyle, Dane, Bernbach (DDB). “Corpo-
Gardner and Levy 1955), brand loyalty (Olsen 1996), rate America,” it seems, is awash in consumer ethnography.
consumer behavior and social organization (Costa 1996), Accompanying the great proliferation of consumer
interpreting consumer stories (Thompson 1997), shopping ethnography comes increased rivalry among research com-
(Miller 1998), and holiday gift giving (Belk 2001; Carrier panies to secure projects from corporations against other
2001; Miller 2001). Anthropology, and particularly ethnog- competing groups. The abundance of ethnographic prac-
raphy, has also been used and misused for marketing and tices means corporations seeking to conduct primary re-
advertising purposes (Arnould 1992; Malefyt and Moeran search no longer scramble to hire an ethnographer. They
2003; Mazzarella 2003; McCracken 1988, 2005; Moeran now enlist multiple ethnographic vendors to compete for
1996; Morais 2007; Sherry 1987; Sunderland and Denny projects in bidding wars. This means ethnographic compa-
2007). nies and market-research anthropologists no longer assume
Notably, increased corporate interest has driven the use a solitary uniqueness for their practice but often distinguish
of ethnography in consumer studies to new heights. Con- themselves by branding.

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 111, Issue 2, pp. 201–210, ISSN 0002-7294 online ISSN 1548-1433. 
C 2009 by the American Anthropological Association.

All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01113.x

202 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 2 • June 2009

Intriguingly, many competing ethnographic groups Suchman 2007). Naomi Klein claims that the great wealth
that brand themselves do so not by anthropological analy- and cultural influence of corporations today can be traced
sis or cultural understandings of consumers, per se, but on back to a seismic shift that sprang from the efforts of mar-
their particular research methodology. Observations of con- keting strategists in the late 1980s: successful companies
sumer behavior vis-à-vis cell phones, video cameras, and produce brands, not products (2000:3). Klein notes a pivotal
Internet blogging have become increasingly popular, ap- moment in the corporate apotheosis of the brand when, in
parently turning technology into a methodological requi- 1988, Philip Morris purchased the Kraft brand for $12.6
site for consumer research. To these ends, practicing an- billion—six times its cost on paper because of the brand’s
thropologists have noted the lacuna in anthropological perceived worth (2000:7). Intensified focus on the brand
thinking for market research, asserting that “ethnography has driven companies to search for deeper consumer mean-
draws the limelight” when anthropology remains “invisi- ing, abandoning the selling of individual products and
ble” (Sunderland and Denny 2003:190). They further note moving “towards a psychological/anthropological exami-
that ethnography is employed by corporations not so much nation of what brands mean to the culture and to people’s
to explore cultural issues of shared values and trends but, lives” (2000:7).
rather, as a method to probe the individual and catego- The brand’s influence is widespread and pervasive even
rize the self (Sunderland and Denny 2003:190). Notably, as more products are virtually indistinguishable. In the age
this trend in focusing on the individual “self” reveals much of mass production and competitive marketing, writes Lucy
about the popularity of technologically enhanced ethno- Suchman, the “manufacture of difference” through brand-
graphic methodologies as it also speaks to the nature of ing has become the hallmark of corporate success (2007:8).
shifting relations between corporate branding and con- People are allegedly introduced to over 3,000 new brands a
sumers. In this light, I explore the social and economic year, and so marketers attempt to elicit feelings for brands
dynamics of the so-called New Economy, which converge to help consumers distinguish one cola from another or
with new business practices to produce the conditions for one sneaker from its competitor, notes marketing expert,
the rapid rise of branded ethnographic companies that fo- Marc Gobe (2001:xxvi). James Twitchell, in Branded Nation
cus on the self. (2004), describes the current trend of branding extended to
I claim that a juncture in the New Economy (Amin hospitals, museums, universities, and even the new mega
and Thrift 2004; Fisher and Downey 2006; Marcus 1998; churches. He claims the widespread proliferation of similar
Thrift 2000, 2005) may explain the rapid rise of ethnogra- institutions has created a surplus of interchangeable goods
phy for consumer research and predict its future direction. such that branding is necessary. Brands thrive on condi-
In this New Economy space, corporate interest in brand- tions of surplus (Twitchell 2004:45).
ing, technology, and consumer research conjoin with great In theories of branding, the notion of “brand differen-
social changes to reflect a critical moment in the flows tiation” has evolved over time from identifying products
between consumption and production. This moment has and guaranteeing quality on a functional level to manag-
produced a new form of consumer and corporate interac- ing perceptual meanings by psychological constructs. Dis-
tivity, witnessed, in part, by the proliferation of branded tinction once relied on identifying product features or the
ethnographic-research practices. As a corporate anthropol- “unique selling proposition,” then shifted to image posi-
ogist, I explore this juncture by analyzing the branded tioning in the 1970s (Ries and Trout 1981). In the last
propaganda of several consumer-research vendors that ex- decade or so, brand differentiation has adapted the sym-
plicitly position their technology-enhanced ethnographic bolic and personal realm of brand identity. Douglas Holt
methods as more innovative than “classic” anthropologi- posits that iconic brands become emotionally meaningful
cal approaches. The ensuing discussion around branding for consumers when they perform “identity myths”: that is,
theories and concepts lets us then view the cultural pro- when they address an individual’s anxieties and aspirations
duction of corporate–consumer relationships that increas- as “symbolic salves” (Holt 2004:8–9). The metaphor of the
ingly focus on the reflexive self in the rise of ethnographic brand as an active human entity with an identity of its own
methodologies. This discussion also reveals that technologi- is something more than formalized commodity fetishism,
cal methodologies, mediated by cell phones, video cameras, writes William Mazzarella (2003:190). The brand becomes
and other technical means, are central to the production the very means by which marketers encourage consumers
of branded ethnographic methods, as the forms of brand- to “enter a virtual world” and form an intimate relationship
ing and technology, in themselves, legitimate consumer– (Mazzarella 2003:186).
corporate flows of interaction. Imbuing brands with human characteristics such as
“personality” and other “inner essences” ostensibly allows
consumers to identify with brands on an intimate level
THE RISE OF BRANDING (Aaker 1996; Belk 1988; Holt 2004; Kapferer 2004). David
Increased interest in corporate ethnography coincides with Aaker, a preeminent marketing theorist, explains: “A brand
a major shift in the way businesses have refocused on personality can be defined as the set of human character-
the brand (Fisher and Downey 2006:18–22; Klein 2000; istics associated with a given brand. Thus it includes such
 de Waal Malefyt • Rise of Consumer Ethnography 203

characteristics as gender, age, and socioeconomic class, as relations are replaced by rapid forms of communication
well as such classic human personality traits as warmth, and instant images of the global, in which individuals in-
concern, and sentimentality” (Aaker 1996:141). The brand, creasingly monitor themselves through reflexive interac-
possessing humanlike attributes, apparently forms a rela- tion between global and local choices (Amin and Thrift
tionship with the individual as a “friend,” “advisor,” and 2004; Giddens 1991; Lash and Urry 1994; Thrift 2000). Re-
so forth. The ultimate expression of brand identification flexivity here holds that individuals are critical self-aware
with a consumer, claims Aaker, is when the brand becomes actors that continually revise and reconfigure their identity
part of the self, such as when couples consume Dewar’s to keep up with vast choices and change among the shifting
scotch at the end of a day as part of a “lifestyle” or when modalities of brands, media, and technology.
Levi’s jeans are worn to mark the weekend’s arrival (Aaker In today’s reflexive space, technology is a central
1996:156). Grant McCracken (1988) posits that consumers medium of the new sociality through which self-identity
actively seek products and brands whose cultural meaning is continually revised. This is evident in the everyday life
corresponds to their identity and aspirations for construct- of e-mail, Internet dating, chat rooms, downloaded me-
ing and maintaining their social self. Notably, this latest dia, blogs, and cell phones and in work-related practices of
development of brands as a personal means to identify and free agents, flex-time for transient employees, PDAs, new
express the self reveals the reflexive turn of the brand and startups, and flattening of old work hierarchies (Fisher and
demonstrates how corporations articulate brands to “speak” Downey 2006; Thrift 2000). This moment suggests that
to our individualized selves. “the social and the economic are woven together as a sin-
gle and inseparable fabric” (Amin and Thrift 2004:x). In-
dividuals use sites like Facebook for social networking as
A REFLEXIVE MOMENT: THE SELF, TECHNOLOGY, AND well as for self-promotion or advice in seeking employment
ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE NEW ECONOMY (Rosenbloom 2008). Daniel Miller and Don Slater (2001)
The rise in branding coincides with major advances in infor- show how the Internet is used to fortify and reinvent fami-
mation and communication technology, global branding, lies across distances, as households keep in touch daily with
and great social changes that reflect a critical moment in the other members in and outside Trinidad, the United States,
flows between consumption and production. At the fron- and the United Kingdom. Popular sites like MySpace and
tiers of the New Economy, write Melissa Fisher and Greg Facebook, note Ken Anderson and Anne McClard, serve a
Downey, reorganization of capitalism is occurring “along- culturally rooted desire for people to be at once connected
side profound cultural and symbolic change as well as social and individualized. With Facebook, one’s identity is not
upheavals” (Fisher and Downey 2006:3). New technolo- fixed but, rather, continually in flux, created and defined
gies, shifting economic patterns, and novel symbolic sys- by what one does and with whom (Anderson and McClard
tems have helped convince people that “they live on the 2008:12). In a highly reflexive age, it seems the significance
cusp of a new age” (Fisher and Downey 2006:4). Accord- of ways to reformulate social organization and remake self-
ing to Andrew Barry and Don Slater (2002:189), the advent identity has necessitated the interactive technologies that
of the New Economy implies a whole series of transfor- serve them.
mations in economic life, which include the centrality of Social changes have also paralleled great corporate
culture, the self, branding, new labor conditions, and glob- changes. “Something new is happening to western Capital-
alization. Michel Callon and colleagues (2004) explain this ism,” writes Nigel Thrift (2000:674), observing that it is no
hybrid convergence of activities in terms of the collabora- longer business as usual. The pressure of conducting busi-
tive agents (consumers, marketers, media, scientists, etc.) ness in a global marketplace has created “a permanent state
that have produced a new dynamic for the possibility of of emergency” (Thrift 2000:674). This pressure requires of
profound social and economic transformations. These col- managers new skills, disciplines, and techniques to manage
laborative agents, they argue, are “highly reflexive” as they the rapid pace of accelerated change as they engineer new
cast doubt over the authority of old organizations and “try kinds of “fast” subjects on which to practice their trades.
to conceive and establish new rules for the game” (Callon Company workspaces have become more open and flexi-
et al. 2004:58). ble (Thrift 2000), and managers of all types are taught to
Leading social changes of the new era are issues of iden- market themselves individually as “brands” (Peters 2007).
tity and the self’s relation to society. Anthony Giddens de- Technology is employed to promote knowledge exchange
scribes the arrival of new mechanisms of self-identity that among actors both intracompany and intercompany (Thrift
are interactively shaped by and yet also shape various in- 2000:687).
stitutions of modernity (1991:2). A distinctive feature of At the same time, corporations are also responding dif-
the reflexive modern self is the interconnection between ferently to their own internal culture. The rise of “soft”
day-to-day social life of the individual and expansive glob- management such as public relations departments and cor-
alizing influences. Modern institutions and mechanisms— porate philanthropy make capitalism appear more ethical
such as marketing, branding, media, and technology— em- and socially responsible (Marcus 1998:5). Current man-
body this interconnection, as traditional face-to-face social agerial interest in collective values, personal relations,
204 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 2 • June 2009

and participatory structures within a corporation are at- AN ANTHROPOLOGIST IN ADVERTISING

tempts, notes George Marcus, to manage the uncertain- I have been a corporate anthropologist dealing with ethnog-
ties of social change—if not in the wider social context, raphy and branding in advertising for over ten years now.
then at least within one’s own organizational boundaries Branding is a central issue on two fronts: advertisers are
(Marcus 1998:7). The reflexive lens turned inward as a “self- concerned with promoting their client’s brands (Moeran
conscious reassessment” exposes how corporate managers 1996:279) and with selling a favorable image of themselves.
are rethinking their “habits of thought” amid great social As head of an ethnographic group at BBDO worldwide ad-
and economic changes (Marcus 1998:7). Corporate adop- vertising, our ethnographic practice, Cultural Discoveries,
tion of more reflexive frameworks registers not only new is one such venue that makes sense of other client’s brands
modes of organizational change within organizations but as it proposes branded ways to promote itself.
also new means for understanding other subjects, namely Cultural Discoveries offers a variety of ethnographic
the consumer. methodologies under one umbrella. The range of methods
The rise of institutional reflexivity and increased focus in the agency services “toolkit” stresses our strategic func-
on the brand has produced new modes of interaction be- tion, making BBDO more attractive to corporations seeking
tween corporations and consumers who use their brands. a full-service agency and more viable against other ethno-
Branding allows marketers to extend their relationships graphic vendors who compete for work from our clients.
with consumers on multiple levels, mediating between in- Our techniques vary, from “Virtual Ethnography”—
dividuals and corporations in reflexive exchanges of con- wherein, after an anthropologist has visited respondents,
sumption and production. Marketers attempt to develop we partner with a website developer to collect people’s ex-
deeper relations with consumers by shifting consumption pressions, statements, and candid remarks about a prod-
away from one-way purchases to ongoing “dialogues” (Lury uct or service on a designated website—to “Deprivation”
2004:44). Such interactions with consumers are witnessed studies—which involves willingly removing or denying the
in the exponential growth of the Internet, branded events use of a branded object or service from a loyal consumer.
and sponsorships, and other forms of personal and indi- This latter “tool” accesses feelings toward the brand in
vidualized marketing beyond anonymous mass-television abeyance, observing the missing role a brand plays in one’s
commercials.1 This reflexive exchange informs how brands life and exposing possible alternative or substitutive be-
increasingly act as an “interface” in “how consumers re- haviors. Increasingly, these techniques are supplemented
late to producers and how producers relate to consumers” with instantaneous cell phone and digital picture report-
(Lury 2004:7). Brands thus help negotiate meaning as inter- ing, blogging, and other technological forms, because con-
active constructs in economic systems of exchange (Malefyt sumers use them and our business clients view technology
2008:50). as a means to an end.2
Just as branding and other interactive marketing ap- Even as one or more of these “methods” is applied
proaches evolved in the late 1980s, ethnography exploded for apparently different research effects, as an anthropol-
on the scene as a source for primary consumer research. ogist I am aware that all engagements with people produce
Ironically, around the time when academic anthropologists meaning from mutual expectations and anticipations of
were “wringing their hands” over misrepresenting the na- outcomes. In spite of marketing practices that brand dif-
tive “other,” corporations discovered ethnography as the ference in methods and outcomes, all research data are
means to assume a closer representation of the consumer not so much gathered as they are produced (Sunderland
“other.” Anthropology’s self-professed “crisis” in represen- and Denny 2007:51). Nevertheless, the rising prevalence of
tation questioned ethnography as highly problematic. As ethnographic practices that compete on technomethodolo-
a primary mode of anthropological inquiry, ethnography’s gies indicates a corporate shift that needs to be addressed.
status was challenged as being caught-up “in between pow- This leads us to query: What are the ways in which branding
erful systems of meaning” (Clifford and Marcus 1986:2), in and technology relate to corporate notions of success, and
“a moment of experimentation” (Marcus and Fischer 1986), why have today’s ethnographic research vendors adopted
or afflicted with a crisis of authority (Clifford 1988). Yet, such approaches?
for corporations, the emergence of new attitudes and ap-
proaches to intensify a deeper examination of the consumer
and the emotional meaning of brands through lifestyle THE PREVALENCE OF TECHNOMETHODOLOGIES
marketing, relationship building, and experiential under- These issues are examined below in the propaganda of
standings of consumption (Lury 2004:37–39) became the several ethnographic vendors that openly position their
very cornerstone of the need for fundamental research like methodologies as innovative, technically advanced, or im-
ethnography. So, although academic anthropologists ques- proved compared to classic ethnography. These ethno-
tioned ethnography’s authoritative claims of representa- graphic vendors are selected for their status as capable
tion, business culture embraced ethnography as a lively and successful consumer-research enterprises. Research In-
means to reconfigure an “active and reflexive” understand- ternational, USA, and Cheskin are highly respected full-
ing of consumers (Lury 2004:38). service research companies that offer strategic, design, and
 de Waal Malefyt • Rise of Consumer Ethnography 205

consulting services on a global scale, beyond ethnography. Photo-ethnography is used with adults, teens, and pre-
The other vendor, Photo-ethnographyTM , represents a par- teens. Special methodologies have been developed for
ticularized use of ethnography for technology services. the latter two audiences. [Photo-ethnographyTM n.d.]
Noteworthy among these vendors is the high degree In this last example, consumers are constituted as social
of agency assigned to consumers, with technology as the agents fully responsible for monitoring, organizing, and
common means of accessing and transmitting field data. assessing their own thoughts and assumptions. They are
And although these vendors share a common ethnographic their own ethnographers. The vendor, in turn, is a mech-
approach to research, each vendor attempts to distinguish anism that merely coordinates and designs a space for
itself as unique by branding its particular take on ethnog- these “reflective accumulations of the self” to be collected.
raphy. In fact, as part of the branding effort, each vendor Technology here serves to instantaneously transfer “facts”
renames “standard” ethnography in terms of its own pro- through self-aware individuals without the interference of
prietary research methodology. a researcher.
Research International, USA
Still another vendor boasts digital ethnography as a
means to authorize the consumer in its research methodol-
The increasing popularity of ethnographically based re- ogy. Executives from Cheskin assert that empowering con-
search can be limiting in some circumstances and cate-
sumers with their own technology “minimizes the middle-
gories. To combat this, Research International has created
a new qualitative method—CellnographyTM . Making the man,” so that consumers can “capture and disseminate in-
most of the latest cell phone and video camera technol- formation” more rapidly with tools with which they are al-
ogy, we send respondents assignments to capture their ready familiar (Rhea and Leckie 2006:20–21). Their version
behavior and feelings at the moment they occur. of consumer-led digital ethnography “innovates” standard
Research International, USA has created a panel of trend- ethnography, because, as they claim, “ethnography is no
setters who were asked to use cell phones to capture their longer a leading-edge research method” (Rhea and Leckie
behavior and feelings within the areas of quick service 2006:19).
restaurants, snacking, and beverage consumption.
We believe digital ethnography is an essential way of un-
The phones allowed them to express their decisions, ex- derstanding people’s behavior in a rapidly changing mar-
periences, and feelings through pictures, video, or sound ketplace. Simply put, digital ethnography applies new
clips which can be immediately sent to a website that technology to the process of ethnographic observation.
Research International monitor and analyze in real time. Through the use of digital tools—like digital photos and
This can be applied to provide insightful, powerful con- video, digital audio, text messaging, e-mail, remote view-
nections into the minds and hearts of consumers.3 ing of desktops and blogging—digital ethnography im-
proves the speed, quality, and relevance of ethnographic
In this promotional literature, we observe a focus on the information gathered and processed in the field. [Rhea
immediacy of reporting, the self-reflexivity of consumers, and Leckie 2006:19]
and the “real-time” delivery of information. The vendor ad-
vocates a proprietary methodology of selecting consumers According to these authors, the aide of technology “paints
who conduct their own fieldwork with cell phones and im- a richer picture of consumers’ lives” and makes it easier to
age production as a technical means of “gathering” data at understand what is meaningful, ultimately “inspiring more
the moment it occurs. successful innovation” for the companies who hire them.
Photo-ethnography below similarly employs digital They continue that “traditional ethnography” is no longer
technology and the self-informed consumer to proffer its practical for most companies because the future of ethnog-
methodology: raphy must evolve “to support a more mobile, individu-
alistic and demanding global consumer” (Rhea and Leckie
Photo-ethnographyTM is a unique research methodology 2006:20).
that gives consumers a powerful way to express them-
Briefly, other successful branded practitioners that “im-
selves: by using photography.
prove” ethnography with technology include Now What
We put 35mm cameras in the hands of target audience Research, c a boutique vendor that combines face-to-face
respondents and ask them to address a question such interviews with consumer blogs in a branded ethnographic
as “How does your pet affect your life?” The question is
approach termed “blographyTM ”; and Red Dot SquareTM ,
directly related to the key client strategic/marketing issue
and is phrased in easy-to-understand consumer terms. a company that emboldens consumers through virtual
3-D animated shopping. At an online station, consumers
Respondents spend several weeks exploring the question navigate any one of multiple retail settings with shop-
and taking photos that express their behavior, attitudes,
and emotions.
ping carts that adjust to the shopper’s height, and light-
ing controls that change for day or evening shopping,
Respondents become very involved with the project, be- thus more rapidly assessing what compels shoppers to se-
coming their own ethnographers and observing their
lect certain brands without the ethnographic trip to the
private lives without the bias of an outside observer.
This yields insights which are simply not achievable supermarket.
with traditional focus group research or with classic All of these approaches modify or replace the longue
ethnography. durée of fieldwork in traditional ethnography. Each
206 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 2 • June 2009

vendor promotes ethnographic versions of “being there” though the task of the anthropologist, to various degrees,
that privilege “fast” technology as a means to engage the is to sort out meanings, biases, memories, and misconcep-
modern self-aware consumer without anthropological or tions in the intersubjectivity of relations with informants,
other theoretical frameworks, questions of interpretation, the work of the branded ethnography vendor is to bring
or the apparent intervention of a skilled ethnographer, consumer “truths” forward with methods that are more
which, as deemed by one firm, presents an unnecessary distinctive than other vendors. Many ethnographic vendors
“middleman.” Rather, an assumed transparency of mean- do not vex over how they arrive at truths because the verac-
ing holds facts as self-evident (Sunderland and Denny ity of facts is assumed “self-evident”; rather, they are con-
2007:51), so that self-aware consumers, enhanced by the cerned with how they can position their practice as faster,
speed of electronic equipment, are empowered to organize, different, and more innovative than other brands. The is-
interpret, and report their own “truths.” What we witness sue of fieldwork then shifts from a question of whether an
here is a radical departure from fieldwork that relies on the anthropologist’s interpretation is well-informed to which
work of the sole anthropologist and the attempt of “repre- of the technically similar vendors best delivers “the truth.”
senting the social reality of others through the analysis of When we analyze how the dynamics of competitive brand-
one’s own experience in the world of these others” (Van ing operate to position these vendors as similar yet distinct,
Maanen 1988:ix.) we realize that apparent contradictions in branding in fact
Typically, the task of the anthropologist in fieldwork work to heighten the value of their ethnographic methods
is to sort out with the informant the interplay between as a brand.
“reflection and immediacy” by continually constructing Brands are positioned in ways that paradoxically pro-
grounds for mutual experience and understanding over mote their uniqueness and distinction from other brands
time (Rabinow 1977:38–39). Ruth Behar adds to this the yet necessitate a level of similarity to define a category of
challenge of confronting one’s own memory in the task of goods or services. Callon and colleagues (2004) describe
representing the other. One’s memory is problematic be- this paradox as the “double movement” of goods. A good
cause, as a way of knowing the subject, it always occurs at must at once be singularized, so that it is distinguished
some other place and some other time. This dialectic be- from other goods and satisfies a demand, and yet be con-
tween self and other lies “at the heart of reflexivity that structed to be comparable to other goods. In other words,
defines anthropological knowledge” (Behar 1996:82). Yet, this dynamic of “different and similar, singular and com-
these issues of developing informant relationships, repre- parable” creates a type of quality or value for the prod-
senting their social reality, and relying on one’s memory uct or brand (Callon et al. 2004:64). Brands require other
to inform an analysis become moot when the centrality brands of similar form to define their value because value
of the anthropologist in ethnographic work is replaced by is based not on substance but on contrasts of relative form.
“instantaneous” self-reporting of the consumer. Coca-Cola may stand for “the real thing” and is widely mar-
This raises a number of epistemological questions that keted as such. Yet, the idea of “the real thing,” in and of
challenge the nature of ethnography: What happens to is- itself, says nothing substantial about Coke the beverage but,
sues of representation, memory, and the shared relation- rather, how it contrasts to other colas. In fact, Coke is more
ship between observer and observed, or subject and object, prosperous in markets where it competes with Pepsi than
when the consumer self does the work of interpreting and in markets where it sells alone; for another example, Mc-
reporting data to an outside research vendor to then be Donald’s sales improve when stores are clustered near
analyzed? Who assumes what Clifford Geertz (1989:6–10) Burger King or Wendy’s franchises (Twitchell 2004:75–76).
describes as the burden of authorship when the instanta- Brands need other brands of similar form to define their
neousness of data transfer through fast technology prob- value, because, as in the linguistic sign, “difference” is what
lematizes the roles of author in analysis? Or have these carries meaning (Saussure 1966:118).
issues merely shifted to a new space and time, mediated Taking this further, we find that these ethnographic
by other constructs of culture, such as marketing research, practices distinguish their brand of methodology on simi-
branding, and technology? Here, I posit, brands are increas- lar forms of technologies. According to Scott Lash and John
ingly employed to moderate the “interface” (Lury 2004) Urry (1994:15), technology is central to the reflexive pro-
between corporate products and the consumer self, as both duction and consumption of meaning, because, through
the structure of branding and form of technology conjoin a process that also involves branding, it assumes proper-
to produce modes of reflexive interaction that align with ties of sign value. On the basis of the sign, ethnographic
corporate practices and ideologies of success. vendors gain comparative value by which to differentiate
themselves as brands. The use of technology as a sign in
ethnographic methodologies allows the sign object (i.e., cell
BRAND AS SITE OF REFLEXIVE PRODUCTION phone) to be emptied of its meaning and filled with branded
A shift in the work of ethnography from anthropologist– content to differentiate one ethnographic supplier from
fieldworker to technology-enhanced ethnography vendor another and “add value” (Davidson 1992). Importantly,
informs a dynamic of branding in the New Economy. Al- because the technically branded content is arbitrary and
 de Waal Malefyt • Rise of Consumer Ethnography 207

transient, it may be substituted, altered, and updated with Technology, in and out of sites of production and con-
the latest sign object, allowing for the copying and upgrad- sumption, thus serves as a model for corporate innovation
ing of similar sign objects among competitors. Thus, du- and change among the consumer selves who use it. As tech-
plication drives the relational–contrastive aspects of brand nologically branded ethnographic companies align their
differentiation through replication. The more brand corporate clients with consumers who use the latest tech-
methodologies are similar to one another, the more nology, they are reifying a version of social relations based
sign value differentiates one brand from another, making on an ideology of technology, progress, and innovation.
Geertz’s felicitous phrase ring true: “It is the copying that The very nature of economic, virtual, and technological ar-
originates” (Geertz 1986:380). tifacts is filtered through social relations, shared norms, and
practices, as Caitlin Zaloom demonstrates with traders on
stock-market floors (Zaloom 2006). “Fast” data—reported
TECHNOLOGY AS SITE OF REFLEXIVE PRODUCTION
instantaneously by consumers via cell phones, Internet
From another perspective, technology itself produces the blogs, pagers, and so forth—reflect and recreate the new
means by which these ethnographic groups mediate reflex- managerial imperative for faster production, management,
ive relations between their corporate clients and consumer insights, and innovation that businesses now run (Thrift
selves. The speed of technology transfer permits the reflex- 2000:675). Speed, youth, and agility then are not just ob-
ive subject (the consumer–brand relationship) to be emp- served behaviors of an online, cell-phoned, instant-results
tied of contextual meaning, flattened through the collapse generation but have also become the virtues of running,
of time and space, and rearticulated with new meanings in organizing, and responding as a corporate entity. Tech-
a different place (Giddens 1991; Lash and Urry 1994). The nology, more than the latest gadget used by consumers,
immediate response of consumers reporting back their feel- thus becomes the subject of a new social formula and
ings and experiences through cell phones, blogs, e-mailed economic model for continuous change, innovation, and
pictures, and so forth means that the scales of time and growth.
place are transformed so that fast forms of data transfer The flows of the self and social organization through
assume value over the content of what is sent. If value is new technology in this moment echo the sensational rise
created in change (Appadurai 1986), then faster transfer of the brand. Companies do not employ vendors to track
produces greater value. Ethnographic vendors can then as- consumers with the latest technology; they do so through
semble and arrange the received data in multiple images the potentialities of their brand. Entire departments, man-
and voices at a “flick of a switch,” juxtaposing the objective agerial teams, and marketing initiatives are constructed
and subjective for greater manipulation of their symbolism around the brand to act out its metaphor of a “living en-
(Lash and Urry 1994:242–243). tity” through myriad brand initiatives, programs, events,
We further add to branded technomethodologies an sponsorships, and promotions. The task on part of corpo-
ideological understanding that science and technology are rate managers, marketing teams, and branded ethnographic
themselves cultural artifacts with social implications. In vendors is to carefully align their brand’s particular “iden-
Bruno Latour’s (1991) way of thinking, technology is social tity” with the lifestyle, values, and identity of the corre-
relations congealed in material form. Technology does not sponding target consumer they aspire to attract. This effort
automatically contain intrinsic capabilities to distinguish substantiates the value and worth of their brand within the
fact from fiction or to divide the objective from subjective, corporation, as it also produces and reproduces the very
as the myth of progress holds (Latour 1999:199). Rather, subject of consumption in the consumer with whom they
technology is contingent on its social use and interpreta- seek to represent (Malefyt 2003). As each brand differenti-
tion by agents who employ it. So, when ethnographic ven- ates its perceived characteristics against other brands in the
dors boast the latest innovative technology to their advan- competitive landscape, it also builds a singular relation to
tage, they also implicitly imbue their brand, their methods, consumers who identify with its perceived meaning (Callon
and everything else about their company with ideological et al. 2004). Branding thus becomes a valued social currency
associations of progress, innovation, and change. Because that informs the critical relationship among ethnographic
the very notion of innovation and change are the basis methodologies, new technologies, and the interrelations
of models for corporate leadership and company growth between corporate products and individual selves.
(Marcus 1998), ethnographic vendors that brandish tech-
nology as their approach hold an ideological edge over
ethnographic practitioners that do not promote techno- WHERE IS A BRANDED ETHNOGRAPHY HEADED?
logically led approaches or that support research method- We might consider the ways in which technomethodolog-
ologies based primarily on theoretical approaches. In fact, ical modes of production become entrenched in the brand-
time-tested theories of culture are antithetical to notions ing process of corporations. The efforts of marketing strate-
of innovation, because the very idea of innovation in tech- gists in the 1970s and 1980s to recategorize and segment
nology assumes progress and continual change. As Callon markets into various niche markets, lifestyles, attitudes and
summarizes: “The game of technology is never finished, behaviors, and relationships, writes Celia Lury (2004:22–
and its ramifications are endless” (1991:132). 28), provided fertile ground for further branding studies
208 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 2 • June 2009

and market segmentations. This opened the door for new Apple users who “think different” and Coca-Cola drinkers
modes of consumer research, such as ethnography, to ex- who seek “the real thing,” to give just two examples. In
pand the profile of consumers with more qualities to dis- this regard, two sign-carrying social constructs—the brand
cover, through deeper insights, and so keep business goals and technology—converge in the individualistic and reflex-
constantly adapting (Klein 2000:4). This, in turn, expanded ive space of the New Economy and offer a perspective on
efforts for more strategic research and multiplied the pos- the dynamic interactions among constructions of the self,
sibilities of brand innovation and change within the cor- consumption, economic cultures, and fast capitalism.
poration. As such, consumer research feeds back into the Furthermore, by enlisting consumers to conduct their
strategic design process of the corporate brand to produce own self-research and by using technology as the means
more studies of the consumer, re-creating more insights to articulate and report these impressions back to corpora-
from marketing efforts, and further feeding the brand. Re- tions, ethnographic vendors working for corporations have
flexive accumulation is thus built into the system of brand- shifted the “burden of authorship” from anthropologist-
ing, to which interactive forms of research such as ethnog- cum-fieldworker to more direct corporate–consumer inter-
raphy generate more action. action. Not only does the self-reported data from consumers
In this regard, we find that a branded methodologi- map out for marketers and ethnographic vendors what cer-
cal ethnography reproduces corporate strategies of inno- tain products and brands reportedly mean to people’s lives
vation and change as it is produced interactively by con- but also the self-reflective data become social facts that cir-
sumers, marketing efforts, and adaptive methodologies in culate within corporations as hybrid forms of knowledge
the sites of consumer research it occupies. New technology capital (Marcus 1998). These accumulated sites of knowl-
and “faster” consumer reporting feed into newer ethno- edge reveal that, as corporate brands enter the consumer
graphic methods, so that the latest innovations are inte- world where humans socialize, interact, and exchange in-
grated and reproduced back into corporate brand strategies. formation, the consumer-self also enters and mediates the
Notably, as branded ethnographic vendors aid in defin- corporate world through translated bits of self-reported
ing and redefining consumer and brand relationships with embodiments that map out marketing discourse and cor-
newer methods, technologies, and aesthetics, they are pro- porate practices of capitalism. Thus, fast technomethodolo-
duced back into the very marketing process they help cre- gies that merge the self into corporations designate the cir-
ate. Thus, corporations will continue to integrate such in- cumstances under which knowledge practices are produced
sights into their own brand organizations and perpetuate and circulated in capitalism (Marcus 1998). This dynamic
the need for more branded methodologies, chiefly as they may perhaps inform the rapid rise of the individual self
incorporate the consumer self and technology as reflexive as the unit of analysis in marketing research (Sunderland
producers and consumers of the brand. and Denny 2007:46), as the singularized brand appears
to mediate the self-aware individual and the corporation’s
knowledge capital in a world increasingly constituted by re-
CONCLUSION
flexive relations between consumption and production and
In this article, I have attempted to raise awareness of new di- multiple flows of the social, economic, and technological
rections in consumer research and how the branding prac- (Appadurai 1996).
tices among research companies affect the way anthropol- In this article, I have claimed that a conjunction in the
ogy is constituted in public discourse. Branding is now a rise of branding, fast technologies, and increased corporate
highly commercial practice that is expected of anyone who interest in consumers has produced, among other things,
has something to say of public value, and increasingly tech- new branded forms of ethnographic practices. This mo-
nology plays a leading role in articulating such practices. ment signals potential new futures of increased corporate
In and outside corporations among consumers, network- and consumer interactivity, as new forms of reflexive
ing sites like Facebook, MySpace, and others resemble a relations mediated by technology and branded practices
branded forum in which an individual’s preferences and integrate consumers into the efforts of corporations while
choices signify lifestyles of the self that play out on a global corporations place their brands and products into the
stage. Technologies in a wide range of products, services, everyday lives of consumers.
and branded commodities may then be thought of as me-
diating structures that, in conjunction with the brand, help
articulate this dialectical interplay of the individual and
TIMOTHY DE WAAL MALEFYT BBDO Worldwide Advertising,
public self.
1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019; and
What this discussion also reveals in its study of a 21st-
Parsons, the New School for Design, The New School Uni-
century consumerist society is that a “technological self”
versity, 88 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011
converges at times with a “branded self.” As “fast” technolo-
gies of cell phones, blogs, web communities, and so forth
become a means to articulate our transient self-expressions NOTES
Acknowledgments. Thanks to Robert J. Morais, Maryann McCabe,
and reconfigure our identities, they conjoin with marketed the anonymous readers, and Tom Boellstorff and Mayumi Shimose
brand identities that also claim certain associations, such as for their helpful comments on this article. Thanks to Steve Barnett
 de Waal Malefyt • Rise of Consumer Ethnography 209

and Rita Denny for initially bringing me into consumer ethnogra- logical Source-Book. John Sherry, ed. Pp. 213–244. Thousand
phy years ago. Oaks, CA: Sage.
1. See Malefyt (2006, 2007) for case studies on the rise of emotional Davidson, Martin
and sensory-based advertising. 1992 The Consumerist Manifesto. London: Routledge.
2. The trend here in technomethodologies is not constitutive of Fisher, Melissa, and Greg Downey, eds.
all consumer ethnography. Cultural Discoveries, among other ven- 2006 Frontiers of Capital: Ethnographic Reflections on the New
dors, employs academic anthropologists who use traditional meth- Economy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
ods and analytics such as participant observation to conduct re- Gardner, Burleigh, and Sidney Levy
search. 1955 The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review
3. First presented by Maria Commons, Vice President of Qualita- 33(2):33–39.
tive, Research International, USA, at the ESOMAR Qualitative Con- Garza, Christina Elnora
ference in Barcelona in November 2005. This excerpt downloaded 1991 Studying the Natives on the Shop Floor. Business
from Research International n.d. Week, September 30. Electronic document, http://www.
businessweek.com/archives/1991/b323353.arc.htm, accessed
August 15, 2008.
Geertz, Clifford
REFERENCES CITED 1986 Making Experience, Authoring Selves. In The Anthropology
of Experience. Victor Turner and Edward Bruner, eds. Pp. 373–
Aaker, David 380. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
1996 Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press. 1989 Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford:
Amin, Ash, and Nigel Thrift, eds. Stanford University Press.
2004 The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader. Malden, MA: Giddens, Anthony
Blackwell. 1991 Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late
Anderson, Ken, and Anne McClard Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2008 Focus on Facebook: Who Are We Anyway? Anthropology Gobe, Marc
News 49(3):10, 12. 2001 Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting
Ante, Spencer Brands to People. New York: Allworth.
2006 The Science of Desire. Business Week, June 5: 98–106. Gomes, Lee
Appadurai, Arjun, ed. 2006 Talking Tech: Companies Hire Anthropologists to Bet-
1986 The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspec- ter Understand Consumers. Wall Street Journal, October 3:
tive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A20.
1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Holt, Douglas
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2004 How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural
Arnould, Eric Branding. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
1992 Research Norms Are Not Anthropology. Marketing News, Kane, Kate
May 25: 4. 1996 Anthropologists Go Native in the Corporate Village. Fast
Baba, Marietta Company. Electronic document, http://www.fastcompany.
1986 Business and Industrial Anthropology: An Overview. NAPA com/magazine/05/anthro.html, accessed August 15, 2008.
Bulletin, 2. Washington, DC: National Association for the Kapferer, Jean-Noel
Practice of Anthropology. 2004 The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sus-
Barry, Andrew, and Don Slater taining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page.
2002 Introduction: The Technical Economy. Economy and Soci- Klein, Naomi
ety 31(2):175–193. 2000 No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. New York: Pi-
Behar, Ruth cador.
1996 The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Lash, Scott, and John Urry
Heart. Boston: Beacon. 1994 Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Belk, Russell Latour, Bruno
1988 Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer 1991 Technology Is Society Made Durable. In A Society of Mon-
Research 15(2):139–168. sters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination. John
2001 Materialism and the Making of the Modern American Law, ed. Pp. 103–131. London: Routledge.
Christmas. In Unwrapping Christmas. Daniel Miller, ed. Pp. 1999 Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.
75–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2006 You Ought To Be in Pictures: Envisioning Marketing Re- Lury, Celia
search. In Review of Marketing Research. N. Malhotra, ed. Pp. 2004 Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. London: Rout-
193–205. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. ledge.
Callon, Michel Malefyt, Timothy de Waal
1991 Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility. In 2003 Models, Metaphors and Client Relations. In Advertising
A Society of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, Cultures. Timothy Malefyt and Brian Moeran, eds. Pp. 139–
and Domination. John Law, ed. Pp. 132–162. London: 163. Oxford: Berg.
Routledge. 2006 The Privatization of Consumption: Marketing Media
Callon, Michel, Cecile Meadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa through Sensory Modalities. Theme issue, “Advertising and
2004 The Economy of Qualities. In The Blackwell Cultural Econ- the Media: 30th Anniversary.” John Sinclair and Christina
omy Reader. Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift, eds. Pp. 58–79. Spurgeon, eds. Media International Australia, Culture and Pol-
Malden, MA: Blackwell. icy 119:85–98.
Carrier, James 2007 From Rational Calculation to Sensual Experience: The
2001 The Rituals of Christmas Giving. In Unwrapping Christmas. Marketing of Emotions in Advertising. In The Emotions:
Daniel Miller, ed. Pp. 55–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A Cultural Reader. Helena Wulff, ed. Pp. 321–338. Oxford:
Clifford, James Berg.
1988 The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- 2008 Brand. In Design Dictionary. Michael Erlhoff and Tim Mar-
versity Press. shall, eds. Pp. 49–55. Basel: Birkhauser.
Clifford, James, and George Marcus Malefyt, Timothy de Waal, and Brian Moeran, eds.
1986 Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2003 Advertising Cultures. Oxford: Berg.
Costa, Janeen Arnold Marcus, George, ed.
1996 The Social Organization of Consumer Behavior. In Con- 1998 Corporate Futures: The Diffusion of the Culturally Sensitive
temporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropo- Corporate Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
210 American Anthropologist • Vol. 111, No. 2 • June 2009

Marcus, George, and Mark Fisher pologists and Designers in the Product Development Industry.
1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Chicago: University of Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Chicago Press. Suchman, Lucy
Mazzarella, William 2007 Anthropology as Brand: Reflections on Corporate Anthro-
2003 Shoveling Smoke: Advertising and Globalization in Con- pology. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Interdisci-
temporary India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. plinarity and Society, Oxford University, February 24.
McCracken, Grant Sunderland, Patricia, and Rita Denny
1988 Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Sym- 2003 Psychology vs. Anthropology: Where Is Culture in Market-
bolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Blooming- place Ethnography. In Advertising Cultures. Timothy Malefyt
ton: Indiana University Press. and Brian Moeran, eds. Pp. 187–202. Oxford: Berg.
2005 Culture and Consumption, vol. 2: Markets, Meaning, and 2007 Doing Anthropology in Consumer Research. Walnut Creek,
Brand Management. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. CA: Left Coast Press.
Miller, Annetta Thompson, Craig
1990 You Are What You Buy. Newsweek, June 4: 59. 1997 Interpreting Consumers: A Hermeneutical Framework
Miller, Daniel for Deriving Marketing Insights from the Texts of Con-
1998 A Theory of Shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. sumers’ Consumption Stories. Journal of Marketing Research
Miller, Daniel, ed. (34):438–455.
2001 Unwrapping Christmas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thrift, Nigel
Miller, Daniel, and Don Slater 2000 Performing Cultures in the New Economy. Annals of the
2001 The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg. Association of American Geographers 90(4):674–692.
Moeran, Brian 2005 Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage.
1996 A Japanese Advertising Agency. Honolulu: University of Tischler, Linda
Hawai‘i Press. 2004 Every Move You Make. Fast Company, April: 73.
Morais, Robert Twitchell, James
2007 Conflict and Confluence in Advertising Meetings. Human 2004 Branded Nation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Organization 66:(2):150–159. Van Maanen, John
Olsen, Barbara 1988 Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: Uni-
1996 Brand Loyalty and Consumption Patterns: The Lineage Fac- versity of Chicago Press.
tor. In Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Wasson, Christina
Anthropological Source-Book. John Sherry, ed. Pp. 245–281. 2000 Ethnography in the Field of Design. Human Organization
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 59(4):377–388.
Peters, Tom Zaloom, Caitlin
2007 The Brand Called You. Fast Company, December 18. Elec- 2006 Trading on Numbers. In Frontiers of Capital: Ethno-
tronic document, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/ graphic Reflections on the New Economy. Melissa Fisher and
10brandyou.html, accessed August 8, 2008. Greg Downey, eds. Pp. 58–85. Durham, NC: Duke University
Photo-ethnographyTM Press.
N.d. Photo-ethnographyTM : Consumer Research Using the Zukin, Sharon
Power of Photography. Electronic document, http://www. 2004 Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Cul-
photo-ethnography.com/About/about.htm, accessed May 20, ture. New York: Routledge.
2008.
Rabinow, Paul FOR FURTHER READING
1977 Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University
of California Press. (These selections were made by the American Anthropologist Ed-
Research International itorial Interns as examples of research related in some way to
N.d. Research International: Insight, Inspiration, Innovation. this article. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Electronic document, http://www.research-int.com, accessed author.)
December 27, 2008.
Rhea, Darrel, and Lisa Leckie Bestor, Theodore C.
2006 Digital Ethnography, Sparking Brilliant Innovation. In- 2001 Supply-Side Sushi: Commodity, Market, and the Global
novation Summer. Pp. 19–21. Electronic document, http:// City. American Anthropologist 103(1):76–95.
www.idsa.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/2526-Rhea.pdf, acces- Foster, Robert J.
sed December 29, 2008. 2007 The Work of the New Economy: Consumers, Brands, and
Ries, Al, and Jack Trout Value Creation. Cultural Anthropology 22(4):707–731.
1981 Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. New York: Warner. Kaplan, Martha
Rosenbloom, Stephanie 2007 Fijian Water in Fiji and New York: Local Politics and a
2008 Looking for Work on Facebook. New York Times, May 1: Global Commodity. Cultural Anthropology 22(4):685–706.
G1, G6. Montoya, Michael J.
Saussure, Ferdinand de 2007 Bioethnic Conscription: Genes, Race, and Mexicana/o Eth-
1966 Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. nicity in Diabetes Research. Cultural Anthropology 22(1):94–
Sherry, John F., Jr. 128.
1987 Advertising as a Cultural System. In Marketing and Semi- Vann, Elizabeth F.
otics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale. J. Umiker- 2006 The Limits of Authenticity in Vietnamese Consumer Mar-
Sebeok, ed. Pp. 441–461. Berlin: De Gruyter. kets. American Anthropologist 108(2):286–296.
1995 Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An An- Vedwan, Neeraj
thropological Source-Book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2007 Pesticides in Coca-Cola and Pepsi: Consumerism, Brand
Squires, Susan, and Bryan Byrne, eds. Image, and Public Interest in a Globalizing India. Cultural
2002 Creating Breakthrough Ideas: The Collaboration of Anthro- Anthropology 22(4):659–684.