The dissertation has been on hold for a bit this summer while I get some other things going. High on that list is our new company - Appozite - and my work becoming an expert in the social shopping arena.  So, as you might guess, becoming an expert in social shopping involves a lot of shopping. Thinking about shopping, reading about shopping, and my favorite - actually shopping. As part of that work, I recently undertook a very scientific approach to shopping and conducted a shopping experiment.

I am generally very careful to keep things related to Appozite only on Appozitegeist and not here on this blog, but I don’t want to be too science-y on Appozitegeist, and I can be science-y here and there are a few things I would like to explore related to the details of this experiment.

Basically, my goal with this experiment was to apply a carefully planned and executed method to the shopping process. As an academic, I carefully plan and execute most everything, so it makes sense to take a rigorous scientific approach to other aspects of my life, specifically shopping.

The Experiment

So I set out to experiment with shopping. (If you want to read more about the experiment, I proposed the experiment in one post on Appozitegeist and followed up with results in another post.) Normally I take a very willy-nilly approach to shopping. I go shopping (online and offline) whenever the mood strikes me and I get whatever I feel like getting. This, as you can imagine, can lead to large credit card bills and a grumpy husband. So I decided I needed to come up with a better way to shop, since I’m doing more of it now (as research, of course).

It was very interesting to apply what I’ve been trained to do as a social scientist to something that feels as silly as shopping. I’ve done quite a bit of reading and research on shopping, not to mention had a great deal of personal experience in the area (I guess you could call this an autoethnography). Based on that “lit review” I developed a set of criteria to test in the field.  I came up with three such criteria: cost, selection, and entertainment. A good shopping trip should balance those elements.

The Criteria

Cost is easy to define; I simply needed to set and stick to a budget. I was excited about testing this as I’m usually terrible with a budget.  For this experiment, I determined my budget would be $75 - high enough to give me some flexibility in the number and quality of my purchases, but low enough that it wouldn’t impact the household budget in any way.

Selection refers to the type of items I can shop for. A good shopping trip allows for the shopper to browse for and purchase a number of different items. Knowing this, I broke selection into two subcriteria: weight and variety.  Weight is the relative importance or significance of an item, and variety refers to a diverse set of items. The ideal shopping trip would balance those criteria; I would purchase several different items that each contribute to my wardrobe in a significant way.  For example, a good shopping trip would result in two shirts, two pairs of earrings, one dress and one pair of shoes. This trip has high variety; there are several different kinds of items in my shopping bag. It also has a high weight, as I need shirts and dresses to round out my wardrobe, and earrings and shoes are always neccessary additions.

Entertainment is harder to quantify than the first two criteria, but essentially it refers to the quality of the shopping interactions. A successful shopping outing needs to be fun and enjoyable, not stressful or frustrating. This was assessed throughout as well as at the conclusion of the shopping trip.

The Results

You can read the full results on Appozitegeist, but the experiment was successful. I stuck to my budget, purchased an ideal combination of high weight and high variety items, and had fun doing it.

It was so successful, in fact, that I want to try again. I think this experiment needs reproducing. And if that means more shopping, well, so be it. It is for science, after all.

Let’s talk more about Netflix and its Watch Instantly service. If you’re like me and you’ve ordered yourself a Roku box, or if you prefer the old fashioned form of watching on your computer, either plugged into a TV or not, then you’ve probably found yourself spending way too much time perusing the Netflix instant viewing catalog, either to end up with way too many choices to pick just one, or without anything that seems good to watch. If you’re one of those people, I’d like to offer some suggestions for you, to help structure your wanderings.

The Good

First, some areas in which to focus. As Netflix continues to add to their catalog, there are a few areas that are already full of good choices. Let’s talk about those first.

The Classics

I think this is the best genre in their catalog. There are tons of classic films and television shows. Some of the big ones that you may have already seen (college film class anyone?) - Casablanca, A Streetcar Named Desire, Rebel Without a Cause, The Seven Year Itch, Ben-Hur, Giant, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, The Exorcist. If you haven’t seen these, this is a good place to start. Then, there are all the movies you’ve wanted to watch, but that never made it to the top of your list. Or maybe these are movies you’ve never heard of, but should definitely check out. Movies like Bullitt, Shaft, Five Easy Pieces, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie and Clyde, The Bridge Over the River Kwai, The General, The Wild Bunch, East of Eden, The Searchers, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The World of Henry Orient, Harvey. And the sci-fi selection is great; it includes both the good ones and the ones that are so bad they’re good. There’s Planet of the Apes, Logan’s Run, A Boy and His Dog, Forbidden Plant, The Road Warrior, The Omega Man, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Eraserhead, Soylent Green. Lots of great camp from the 50s and 60s, too. Try 20 Million Miles to Earth, Astro Zombies, or Mars Needs Women. In addition, check out the work of a few Hollywood icons:

• Stanley Kubrick - 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Killing, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut
• Alfred Hitchcock - Vertigo, The Birds, Saboteur, The Trouble with Harry, Torn Curtain, Dial M for Murder
• Cary Grant - Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Charade, I Was a Male War Bride, Holiday
• Clint Eastwood: Dirty Harry, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, Letters from Iwo Jima, Absolute Power

Then there’s the classic television. Shows like Magnum P.I., The Rockford Files, Leave It to Beaver, Miami Vice, The A-Team, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Saved by the Bell. Lots of stuff to choose from, no matter if your preference trends toward the 1950s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Speaking of television, this is another area Netflix has done well so far.

Television

The television selection has something to please everyone. Of course there’s lots of crap, but there are lots of gems, too. If you’ve managed to never see The Office - both British and American versions - here’s your chance to catch up. There are a number of excellent HBO and Showtime programs, like Dexter, Weeds, Dead Like Me, and The L Word. Other good contemporary shows include 30 Rock, Heroes, Law and Order, Coupling, NewsRadio. There is also lots of sci-fi. Quantum Leap, Dr. Who, Sliders, The Outer Limits, and Battlestar Galactica. There are many seasons of many of these, so there’s plenty to watch instantly. Then there are the A&E and BBC miniseries - Vanity Fair, Pride and Prejudice, North and South, and a number of other Victorian era dramas. There are shows from the National Geographic and History Channels, as well as tons of other science, history and nature shows.

Independent and Smaller Releases

There are lots of choices in the independent category. Independent films can be really quirky and sweet, funny and smart, or they can also be complete crap, so navigate this category carefully. Some to check out on Netflix would be The King of Kong, Orgazmo, Chalk, King of California, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Ten, Living in Oblivion, Sherrybaby, Conversations with Other Women. There are many others though, depending on your tastes, so look around.

Documentaries

I don’t know much about this genre, but there are myriad choices in the documentary section. From some of the bigger box office successes like Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Born into Brothels, Spellbound, Super Size Me, and March of the Penguins to smaller releases like Cocaine Cowboys, Maxed Out, The Business of Being Born, Promises, Fidel, there are documentaries on hundreds of different topics.

The Bad

Now, some areas to avoid. You’ve probably heard this complaint from other people; there are a few areas in which Netflix has not yet compiled a compelling collection for instant watching. Here are some of those.

New Blockbusters

This is the biggest complaint most people have about Netflix’s instant watching service. I’m sure it’s difficult and expensive to acquire the rights to stream most new releases. As such, there aren’t many to see. I watched the Orphanage recently, if that counts. Some other new releases include La Vie en Rose, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, Pan’s Labyrinth, Conspiracy, but none of them huge blockbusters. There are more older big movies - think along the lines of Lethal Weapon, The Last of the Mohicans, A Fish Called Wanda, Cocoon, Mannequin, The Fifth Element. Well, besides Lethal Weapon, I’m not sure I’d call most of those “blockbusters,” but they are a bit more mainstream. In general, there’s just not a lot of these kinds of movies available with the instant watching service.

Comedies

Other than the comedy television shows, and the independent and classic films I’ve discussed, many of the movies classified as comedy are pretty terrible. There are a few fun ones, though. Like Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day, Team America: World Police, and Beetlejuice. There’s lots of standup, if that interests you. But very little contemporary comedy.

So, overall, there’s lots of good stuff you can watch instantly with Netflix. It’s certainly not perfect, but it is a great addition to the DVD delivery portion of their business. I think it’s especially good for catching up on movies and TV shows you might have missed (or those from before you were born). And if you have any additions to this list, leave them in the comments! I’d very much like for this to be a useful resource.

How many times, when you log into Facebook or FriendFeed or Twitter, do you see new photos of a friend’s “amazing” vacation or her glowing review of a “fantastic” new restaurant she found? Sure, it’s great to keep up with what your friends are doing, but when you’re continually presented with these selective portrayals of everyone’s wonderful lives, it can start to wear on you.

Social desirability bias is most certainly part of this. We want to present ourselves to others in a positive way; that’s just part of life. I do this as much as anyone. For example, I post vacation and party photos on Flickr, but I never post anything that shows the regular or negative parts of my life. Who wants to see or read about me sitting on the couch with my laptop or being stressed out about work? Furthermore, why would I want anyone to have to?

But this can lead to a pretty weird public version of our personal lives. Tools like Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and the rest allow us to selectively present a sanitized and upbeat picture of our lives. If you knew me only from my Flickr stream, you’d think I was quite the popular, active world traveler. In reality, I travel occasionally and attend various social events, but I spend most of my time quietly at home with my husband or with a few close friends.

This is fine; there’s nothing wrong with a bit of image management and personal public relations. But always being faced with these near-perfect portrayals of everyone else’s lives can wear on us. We compare our lives to the lives of those around us and we want that comparison to end up in our favor. Leon Festinger talked about this idea of social comparison half a century ago, long before we had the constant status updates and public profiles we do now. We tend to compare ourselves to similar others, and when we don’t measure up that makes us feel bad, even competitive.

We want to reduce this cognitive dissonance; most people hate to feel bad. We reduce dissonance in a number of ways, some healthy, some not. We can choose to reframe the way we think about something (”It’s okay if I’m not traveling the world right now; I’m saving up to buy a new house”), we can discredit the source of our dissonance (”Joe’s an idiot for spending so much money on that new TV”), we can change our behaviors (”If it bothers me to see other people having so much fun camping, then maybe I should go camping more”). But the feeling will come back; we will always compare ourselves to others.

What’s the opposite of schadenfreude? I can’t really think of a word that means feeling bad when something good happens to someone else. It’s more than envy or jealousy; it’s feeling that you’re somehow not living up to this social comparison. You don’t want what the other person has, but you want more for yourself. I don’t know, maybe that is jealousy.

Either way, I wonder what Leon Festinger and his social psychology colleagues in the 1950s would think of applying their ideas to something like Twitter. Bet they never pictured it.