Move That Bus! Revealing Consumerism and Materialism in

Real Estate Programs

Evan Kropp, Graduate StudentUniversity of Hartford – School of Communication

2011

IntroductionIdeologies of capitalism in

modern society and the relationship between:

◦Television real estate programs

◦The politics of consumption

◦The myth of the American Dream

American Consumption

Americans participate in an artificial consumer culture

Harder than ever to achieve even a satisfying standard of living.◦Incomes have stagnated◦Gap between rich & poor widened◦Upward mobility stifled◦Economic growth rates reduced

American Consumption

“Income Solution” is not the answer

◦ Increased income = increased consumption and exacerbates inequalities

◦“Adequate” income in an elusive goal

◦Do the rich need more?

True problem is not income, but our attitudes towards consumption

TelevisionTV viewership increasing

Many shows based on theme of “learning”

Real Estate programs teach the politics of consumption and reinforcing the myth of the American dream.

Real Estate ShowsLost educational value of This Old House

Ratings bonanza

New program types are not realistic◦ Flipping shows

Changing psychology of how homes are viewed.◦ Homes no longer viewed as shelter◦ Views aligned with politics of consumption◦ Shows acted as cheerleaders for the market

Real Estate ShowsBurton Jablin, Scripps Network

House Hunters based on false reality

Business Week Article on House Hunters International

Extreme Makeover: Home EditionPremiered 2003

No educational value

Fairy tale

Aligned with dominant ideologies

Provides false hope

Extreme Makeover: Home EditionChange in government structure to

NeoLiberal society

Highlighted by families chosen

But issues themselves not addressed

Three questions of each episode:◦ 1. What kind of people are these?◦ 2. If these families are “All-American” why are

they living in these conditions?◦ 3. How can this problem be remedied?

Extreme Makeover: Home EditionMorality rewarded with material

possessions

Myth of classless society

Economic data:◦Decline in mobility◦1979 ordinary income: $31,900 / 1997

ordinary income $33,200◦CEO pay from $3.45 million (1980) to $155

million (2001)

ConclusionsWhat is missing from these shows?

◦Costs

Who benefits from these shows?◦Large corporations◦Small local organizations◦Networks & cable channels◦Show personalities

What about the viewers?

ConclusionsHarmful messages…

◦Keeping up◦Low income households targets◦Increased work hours◦Decreased savings rates◦Decreased public funds

We must re-evaluate our social attitudes about consumption and be aware how these attitudes

are shaped by and represented on television

Sources Campbell, C. (2008). FLIP ALL THOSE FLIPPIN’ SHOWS. Maclean’s,

121(19), 58-60. Gary, S. (April, 18, 2008). Real estate shows keep their value. USA Today.

Section: Life, p. 13d. Palmer, G. (2011). Extreme makeover: home edition. In G. Dines & J.M

Humez (Ed.), Gender, race and class in media. (pp. 37-43). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Palmeri, C. (2009). Real Estate TV shows can’t keep up with the plunging market. Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2009/08/real_estate_tv.html

Poniewozik, J. (2008). Pimp my real estate market!. Time, 171(16),27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Schor, P. (2011). The new politics of consumption: Why Americans want so much more than they need. In G. Dines & J.M Humez (Ed.), Gender, race and class in media. (pp. 205-211). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Stetler, B. (May 24, 2009). Realty check for real estate shows. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/arts/television/24stel.html

Winsolw, L. (2010). Comforting the comfortable: Extreme Makeover Home Edition’s ideological conquest. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 37(3), 267-290.