Attempting to make finer-grained distinctions than his editors agree with, Douglass Rushkoff explores the differences between "commoditization" and "commodification." (For the record, I agree with him--language changes over time, and the publishing industry usually lags far behind both popular culture and theory; NetNewsWire's spellcheck doesn't like either, but it also flagged NetNewsWire, so that's not saying much.) Oddly, this is the second inquiry I've see this week about editors balking at terms they don't seem to quite get; the first was from a friend struggling to get her editors to allow the word "appropriated" in a textbook about mix culture. After a long discussion, here's what Rushkoff ends up with:
'Commoditization' is a newer and undocumented word (except in WIKI) referring specifically to the way that goods that used to be distinguishable in terms of attributes end up becoming mere commodities in the eyes of the market or consumers. 'The collapse of Marlboro's brand value in the early 1990's convinced cigarette manufacturers that their products had become commoditized.' or 'Unless Intel comes up with a new kind of computer memory chip, Japanese equivalents will commoditize RAM.' The problem with commoditization is that the only thing that left to distinguish one brand from another is price, so margins shrink.
Commodification is more of a crime of the market against humanity, while commoditization is more of a market problem for the manufacturers of branded goods.
Agreed?"
[via rushkoff.blog]
Posted by johndanseven at September 4, 2005 11:45 PM