So, please come visit me at the new and improved Michael Durwin blog at: www.mdurwin.com. As always you can catch me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mdurwin.

“Looking for experts on consumer behavior or branding strategies or even psychology to discuss how press/consumers develop an opinion about a company and whether/how that opinion can be swayed.”

It got me excited that someone may be looking for new ways to engage with consumers other than the same old shotgun marketing that has been going on. I focused on consumers, as that is my area of expertise.

Here was my response:

Consumers are influenced in their opinions of brands by many factors:

Engagement – a consumer’s actual experience with a brand. This usually but not always refers to their actual use of a brand’s product or service. Sometimes this can manifest itself in their experience with the brand’s customer service.

Marketing – of course marketing, advertising, coupons and the like are a big influencer, or brands wouldn’t spend the money! A fine example is Apple. They developed a product (iPod) that was marketed as hip, cool, and trendy. Their psychographic was not just people who were hip, cool, and trendy, but those who thought they were, and those who wished they were.

PR – this taps into the same channel as above, what people are reading or hearing about a product.

Peers – Peers have replaced celebrity endorsements in the mind of consumers. They’re not going to by a t-shirt because Michael Jordan wears it (much to Hanes’ chagrine), they are going to buy it because their big brother wears it. Consumers are much more likely to engage with a brand based on what kind of experience a close contact, friend or family, has had with the brand. This may mean that I’ll buy a CD (or more likely download an mp3) of a new artist because my buddy Roy likes them (he and I have similar, but not identical tastes), or I may decide not to make the purchase because my buddy Steve (whose tastes I can barely stand) recommended them.

Peripheral Peers – while these aren’t close contacts, they are other consumers with a similar psychographic makeup. For example, my wife and I are expecting our first child in February. She did not put a single item on our baby registry without reading every single review on the site of the company through which we’re making a list. Often she would double check the reviews on another site, say a portal like thebump.com, or with our neighbor who has a 6 month old (see Peers). While these influencers have less of an impact, they make it easier to get input from those with the same mindset. I’ve used Twitter recently to get feedback from my Followers on a video camera I’m looking to purchase. This gives me a broad range of honest, yet in-depth feedback. I have to take some with a grain of salt, like the podcast pro who only uses high end Canon products, or the 22 year old that just love, love, LOVES her Flip Mino (mostly because it’s pink I think).

As a side note, I use the term psychographic when discussing groups with similar interests or mindset. A 16 year old boy and a 60 year old woman wouldn’t necessarily be in the same demographic, yet when considering marketing for the New England Patriots, it is important to keep in mind that they belong to the same psychographic: New England Patriots fans. I find that targeting a psychographic is much smarter than targeting a demographic. A psychographic is a qualified lead, while and demographic is a quantity play. When I was 16 I knew many other 16 year olds, they were all very different with very different interests, why would anyone want to market to all of us the same way?

As for your question on whether or how a consumer or PR reps opinions can be swayed, it depends:

What has lead them to form an opinion? If their negative opinion is based on marketing a good Peripheral Peer review would do it. This or a Peer influencer would overcome almost all other types of influencers. My brother-in-law got an iPod that gave him endless trouble. He was totally turned off of Apple products. Yet, after a year of influence based on my own engagement with the brand (iPod, iPhone, Macs and home and work), he changed his mind. He has since bought a new iPod, an iBook and has been begging for an iPhone. Peer input is the strongest influencer, and in it’s absence, Peripheral Peer input. Both are hard to overcome, Peer being the hardest. Only ground breaking marketing and PR can change a negative Peer influence to positive.

I assume that the question pertained to changing a negative opinion to a positive one. That takes alot of work. However, changing a positive opinion to a negative one is pretty easy. All of the influencers I’ve mentioned above can very quickly change a consumer’s opinion about a brand. Recently a viral email was sent around showing images of dead chickens (not killed FOR selling, but long dead) being cleaned for sale to Walmart. I received it from several sources and forwarded it to many more. Regardless of any of the recipients’ past interaction with Walmart, I’d guess that few that saw the email would be very likely to go back to Walmart. PR mistakes, bad press, word of mouth or a bad personal exchange with any brand can very quickly change an opinion.

That being said, customer service goes a long way. I’ve had some trouble with my car and my computers. In each case, my frustration was quickly erased by excellent customer service. In every case, a similar engagement with a brand would have sent me to a competitor, not to mention negative word of mouth. However, thanks to excellent encounters with customer service, I’m an even bigger fan of the brands (signing up for their newsletter, becomming a brand ambassador).

Customer service is going to become a larger part of corporate marketing budgets in the future as products and services (as well as advertising) become more personalized how-the-economy-back-during-the-depression-of-2009-changed-the-world-part-8-marketing), advertising becomes trickier, and more brands are vying for the eye of every consumer.

One of the best low-cost ways to generate positive branding is to find brand ambassadors like myself, those with peripheral or direct peer influence, and take advantage of them. I hear and have experienced being a targeted blogger or Twitter user who is engaged by a brand. The brand would send products, ask for, or pay for reviews, hoping that the blog or Tweets would influence others. This is a demographic approach that doesn’t often work. Many bloggers won’t do it, often their readers will see through it. Rather than finding digital influencers in general, who will at best ineffectively market their product, brands should take the extra time to find those who are already fans, ambassadors or at least interested in their products and services. These are your influencers!

Leading up to Dep II folks used the Internet to gather data, purchase goods, and be entertained by music, vids and games. In most cases a company I’d individual would “post” media to a “web site” where users could read, click, watch, or download it. Users had very little choice on what they got, generally being given only a few options. Something was about to change all that though.

Just prior to the election of President Obama, the first of his 3 terms, several print publications (see references below for definitions) named the consumer as the Person of the Year and Marketer of the Year. The average citizen was beginning to take control of how goods and services were presented to them. Up to this point most manufacturers and service providers would build a generic product then hire marketers to create advertising campaigns to promote their product. The advertisements would, almost without exception, be focused on a wide demographic. Men: 18-45, teens: 12-22, were typical designations. Of course no one today would waste time on such a broad and incongruous grouping. Even now, at 79, I can remember being a teen, nine of us were very similar. There were jocks, studes, vocies, rich, poor, popular, geeks, etc. It still amazed me that anyone sold anything in such a broad way. It’s important to remember that back in the 20th Century and into the singles of the 21st Century, most people just accepted that they belonged to a demographic and accepted products and services as they were: Corporate America was in charge. Of course that is no longer the case: we get goods and services tailored personally to us, we brag about the cool advertising generated by our profile. Lime most of history, it is easy, in hindsight, to see the tipping point: The Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Chinese Colonization of Mars, Secretary Michelle Obama’s Global Union Initiative, etc. Bush’s Collapse changed the relationship between consumers and corporations forever.

It is unfair that the Collapse be completely blamed on George Bush, it is so named primarily because the Iraqi Folly put such a financial burden on the country, at a point when a brief financial meltdown was imminent. It took several decades of corporate greed, governmental missteps, and an economy based on speculation and Wall Street, to cause the Collapse. The “Silly President” just happened to push it over the edge.

The hardship had many unexpected consequences including the collapse of the television, radio (much different than what we consider it today), music and oil industries. The collapse of the oil industry and it’s evolution into an international conservatorship has been widely discussed and irrelevant to this story. The Big Media collapse has direct bearing though.

Citizens attention was divided in their entertainment, communications and informational options then: between a television, telephone and radio or a computer. With meager incomes most had to choose between the two. History shows they chose computers. These bulky, desktop machines were far less elegant than our current solution, yet they offered information, communication, entertainment and productivity in one package. This primitive machine had been used to market to consumers in a 19th Century manner, with 20th Century technology. A few technology advances offered the ability for social networks to begin to crop up, all separate and distinct. Very quickly more niche networks emerged, focused on specific subjects, forms of communication, and psychographics. CGTalk, Twitter, and Ning are examples of each that I was immersed in. Very quickly the populace found they had replaced one fractured interface with another, as their attention was now divided between multiple separate “sites”.

Yet the seeds of control had been sewn. Many of these sites, oddly called “networks”, offered personalization features as well as the ability to be viewed on mobile devices. Soon a demand was met: the ability to bring all of their desired content together under a universal, personalized ID, that they could interact with on any device. Early mobile and computer companies began building customized devices receiving customized information. Soon behavioral targeting was giving users information they wanted before they asked for it. Advertisers couldn’t bridge the gap. Most companies were still selling generic products using mass marketing tactics. The people demanded better. They had the power to make demands. It was easier fir a mom & pop operation to deliver customized goods, promoting them with customized messaging, easier than large companies. Product and Services industries as well as their advertisers couldn’t compete on such a micro-level. This signaled the end of marketing as it had been for decades.

Early social media proponents recognized early on that talking to one was better than shouting at a million. Advertisers and companies, in their desperation finally began to listen. An entire generation of marketers and advertisers was displaced. Their seats were filled by social media evangelists managing hundreds of non-employee brand evangelists. These weren’t just mouthpieces, they weren’t even paid! They were brand fans. It was the pyramid management system. One SoMe evangelist would invite brand loyalists, even competitive brand loyalist to try products and report on them. These loyalists in turn were followed by thousands, who, in turn, influenced millions of others.

Many companies during this time abandoned the strategy when they received negative feedback. The smart ones began to see this as positive input. It wasn’t long before companies were creating custom products for their loyalists. It was expensive. This zoo drove the desire from all consumers to have personalized products. Advertisers soon got in the act, creating customized messaging. Consumers had long given up the idea of privacy or anonymity online. Their tracked behavior, purchase history, financial background, resume, even family info now fed shared databases from which technology evolved to serve advertising unique to every recipient.

It seems odd, in this day and age, that a single add would be the basis of an entire product campaign. Teens in college, sports fans in bars, even the few that still work in offices, share their commercials as a bag of identity, as unique as a fingerprint. Just today my grand kids and I were laughing over our implant OS updates from Apple. I’m still on 10.4.2!

Who knows how personalization will effect us in the future. If I have to spend 4 hours on an airship to visit my grandkids on the West Coast, I’d like a seat that knows I have a bad back!

Greer makes an interesting point though, if the administration were to carry over their SoMe database, it would now belong to the Federal government, and hence, future administrations. Perhaps this may be a good law to change? I’m certain that every administration would love to keeop their lists close to their chest, and I’m sure most of us on the list of whatever candidate we backed don’t want our info given to the other guy.

One thing is certain though, the Obama administration is thinking very hard on how best to leverage their SoMe assets over the coming 4-8 years. I for one would welcome a social network around the government, what is being mentioned of as WeGov.

What are your thoughts on if and how the Obama Campaign SoMe assets should be used by the Obama Administration?

As an aside: I’m a creative director with 14 years of online and SoMe experience. Dear Obama administration: any openings? How about basing WeGov in Boston? We have some great superstars here, all of whom voted for you…

While I could spend the rest of my ride on the T talking about ways that social media could be the medium to share the good will, no one is going to pay me for it, and with a recent layoff, I’m feeling much less gracious with my free marketing advice. The holidays are coming though and we should all be looking at what we’re grateful for, even if we need the Large Hadron Collider to test the theory of the existence of something to be grateful for. With the coming rush of holiday consumerism and travel I thought we should consider Paying it Forward to some of the companies we appreciate. Perhaps @GoodWill and @Karma will get the Tweet and our holiday season won’t be tarnished with bad company-customer interaction. Perhaps customers will be a bit more patient and understanding, and corporate employees will be extra diligent and helpful in their job execution.

So I’m asking readers to think of a company whose products or service they admire or have had a positive interaction with, and give them a shout out. A simple “hey, nice job” is enough. If you want be more expressive, feel free. Use whatever medium you feel comfortable with; post a video to YouTube, write a letter, call the service center, start a Facebook Fan page, post a Tweet (#iLuvBrandX), hug a stockboy!

Quantum of Solace

I’m a HUGE James Bond fan. I’ve been watching the movies since I was young enough to feel uncomfortable with the opening sequence. Sean Connery has been the quintessential Bond for years, with Pierce Brosnan coming a close second. Until Daniel Craig. The reimagining of the Bond universe, following in the wake of the Bourne Identity is nothing short of stellar. I’m an avid reader and have 1st edition copies of most of the 007 novels. The ate much more serious and violent than the movies have been. Casino Royale was spot on with the book. Quantum of Solace, though not based on a book, is a formidable follow-up to the new grittier Bond.
I was lucky enough to see the new Bond film as part of a marketing conference for networks and cable companies. My company won 2 silver awards for 2 campaigns I was on. One was for a piece I designed for HBO Latin America. Our contact, Frank and I decided to skip one of the parties to catch the movie.
From the opening chase, I was on the edge of my seat. The action sequences were so hard and fast that I’m still processing them. The character development, including exiting characters from Casino Royale and the building of future characters in the form of Felix Lighter, and of course Bond himself was excellent. The movie answered few questions left from the first but hinted that the answers would be forth coming.
The only major gadgets were pretty realistic. MI6 used a Microsoft Surface like touch interface on their computers and Bonds most used tool was a fancy Sony Ericsson mobile phone with a great tracking device. Lookout Google!
Missing were Bond’s ubiquitous lines:
“Bond. James Bond.”
“Martini. Shaken not stirred.”
We were introduced to a drink without a name that will become 007s signature drink. Introduced in this movie was a custom martini that is introduced in the Casino Royale book called the Vesper. The writers and director are doing a fantastic job building the layers of the Bind character, all of the events that turn him into the killing machine he will become. Even guilt over the death a seduced female character (think Goldfinger) adds another layer to the onion of Bond.
My greatest disappointment with the new film was the title sequence. As a motion graphics designer, 007 opening titles have been a great influence. While the visuals were much more subtle than in recent years, they were lean, mean and cool, as they should be. Certainly worthy of the Bond franchise. Hopefully the ones I will some day create will be as well. What missed the mark was the music. The Jack White and Alisha Keys track would be fantastic for any other action flick, but it’s no Goldfinger, Live and Let Die, even The World Is Not Enough (one of my favorites, Shirley Manson would be a great Bond villain). While it had the requisite big instrument style, it lacked a flow as smooth as Bond’s lady moves, and was missing a memorable hook that belied to storyline. I’m still waiting for Amy Winehouse to get out of rehab long enough to finish her track, I have a feeling that shell better represent the Bond style. When and it is every released, I may just use it as proof of concept to land my gig doing the open title!

I was excited to see that developers are coming up with interesting plugins that take advantage of the iPhone camera and add steroids to it. The iPhone takes OK pictures, not very high megapixels, terrible in low light, or slow when you need a quick shot, but it’s not horrible for a camera you take everywhere in your back pocket that is also a phone, web browsers, etc. But, I’ve begun to notice some odd glitches either from the software, from moving the camera shile shooting, covering the lens until right before the fake click. These have given me a way to be more artistic with my photographs. Now comes the Nevercenter CameraBag. It basically offers filters for your images. You can pull images from your existing iPhone Photos folder, or take new pictures. It doesn’t offer many preferences:

iPhone CameraBag Preferences

It does offer a great list of photo filter options. Several new options have been added to this version of the app, and I’m hoping for more in the future such as saturation, faux depth of field, cropping, zoom, lens options. FOr now though, here are examples of each of the camera options beginning with the original image I took outside my office window:

iPhone CameraBag Original

Here is a comparison of CameraBag’s filters:

iPhone CameraBag Helga (Holga)

I won’t do an example for each camera filter, but for this one, here is an example of a shot I took with my Holga. You’ll see similar saturation, the halo effect and what’s missing, the light leaks. I’m hoping to see this addition in a future version:

Rowboat in Provincetown taken mid-day with Holga.

And now, the rest of the filters:

iPhone CameraBag Lolo (Lomography)

iPhone CameraBag Cinema

iPhone CameraBag Ansel (as in Ansel Adams)

iPhone CameraBag 1962

iPhone CameraBag 1974

iPhone CameraBag Fisheye

iPhone CameraBag Infrared

Here are some screenshots of the interface:

iPhone CameraBag Opening Screen

iPhone CameraBag Camera Menu

Most of this stuff can be done with some time in Photoshop or with the actual cameras represented, and to all of the camera snobs that say the iPhone is an expensive “toy camera”: duh, it’s not meant to be a replacement for toy cameras, SLRs or a good digital camera. But, when it’s the camera in your pocket, at least it can be fun!

As a numb-thumbed Twitter user I saw supporters not only outnumber other candidates, but leverage the tools of social media to outemail, outblog, outTweet, and generally outshout supporters of other candidates. The Obama campaign, unlike most corporations, went where users congregated online, talked to them in their own language and empowered them to reshape the Obama brand into something that represented their voice and encouraged them to spread it. And did they!

Citizens, sick of accepting what they were given as the “presumed” candidate, decided with their blogs, their wallets, and their votes, not to except what they were given, but to demand a better candidate. The candidate himself has said that he listened to his supporters to help shape his candidacy.

We can only hope that all of the hard work, hopes and dreams of Obama’s supporters is met with the same care, transparency and two-way communication as the campaign has shown. At no time have so many people been do engaged to make things happen in this country. If the Obama Administration resembles the Obama Campaign, historians will call this one of the most pivotal episodes in the history of the United States, to be compared with the Revolution and Civil War.

Yes We Did! Yes We Can!

It is important to note that whether the economy is in an upswing or a downswing, consumers still spend money, they still have needs, and they still have wants. Pulling back on advertising only allows your competition to take advantage of a conservative marketing environment, and the advantages that offers, such as reduced media rates, to step in to capture a greater mind share. Taking advantage of new technology and marketing channels is as effective now as it was then. Compare the use of social media and mobile now to Proctor & Gambles use of radio then. The troubled economic times we find ourselves in now can be as good for some as much as they can be bad for others. It’s all on how you take advantage of the situation.

THE QUESTION

What industries fared relatively better and worse in terms of pricing and demand during the Great Depression of 1929? Do the industries reflect a hierarchy of demand from essential consumables to deferrable purchases to capital goods? What specific companies did well in any industry and what distinguishes those companies.

THE ANSWER

To begin, not all was gloom and doom during the Great Depression. It was a time when those who knew what they were doing made great economic strides and the very nature of the depression itself was an economic boon for them. It was a time when several companies benefited from aggressive marketing while their rivals cut back. A good example of that would be Kellogg besting C.W. Post during that time. Consumers didn’t totally stop spending during the depression, most just looked for better deals and the companies providing those better deals came out stronger after the depression ended. When spending picked up, consumer loyalty to those companies remained.

To state a generality, those companies who not only survived but did well and grew during the Great Depression are those who continued to act as though there were nothing wrong and that the public had money to spend. In other words, they advertised. These are industries who didn’t wait for public demand for their products to rise, they created that demand even during the most difficult of times. Because so many companies cut spending during that era, advertising budgets were largely eliminated in many industries. Not only did spending decline, these companies actually dropped out of public sight because of short sighted decisions made about spending money to keep a high profile. These advertising cutbacks caused many customers to feel abandoned and associated the effected brands with a lack of staying power. This not only drove customers to more aggressive competitors but caused a certain among of financial mistrust when it came to making additional investments in the no longer visible companies.

Both anecdotal and empirical evidence support the case that advertising was the main factor in the growth or downfall of companies during those years. To put it bluntly, the companies which demonstrated the most growth and which rang up the most sales were those which advertised heavily. The Great Depression offers classic examples of the power of brand advertising even during times of economic crisis.

Proctor and Gamble

This is a company which has a philosophy of not reducing advertising budgets during times of recession and they certainly did not make any such reduction during the Depression. P&G has made progress in every one of the major recessions and that is no accident. When their competitors were swinging the budget axe, P&G actually increased their spending. While the Depression caused problems for many, P&G came out of it unscathed. Radio took P&G’s message into more homes than ever.

Chevrolet

During the 1920s, Fords were outselling Chevrolets by 10 to 1. In spite of the Depression, Chevrolet continued to expand its advertising budget and by 1931, the “Chevy 6″ took the lead in its field and remained there for the next five years.

Camel Cigarettes

In 1920 Camel was the top selling tobacco product. American Tobacco Company then struck back with the Lucky Strike brand and by 1929 Lucky had overtaken Camel as the number one brand. Two years later in the heart of the Depression, Chesterfield also overtook Camel. Camel countered with a massive increase in advertising spending and by doing so demonstrated the power of advertising during depressed times. By 1935, it was back on top.

Now, these examples count as anecdotal. But in addition to these examples, studies have demonstrated that during times of recession, companies that maintain advertising during these periods experience higher sales and profits during the downturns and afterward than companies who cut their advertising budgets.

It was also the very nature of this advertising that spurred the growth of two other industries during the Depression. The first of which was radio broadcasting.

Let’s return to Proctor and Gamble for a while. P&G first turned to radio in 1923 advertising Crisco on a New York station. Other products such as Ivory and Lava soap were advertised on ‘product oriented’ shows which were similar to today’s infomercials. But in the heart of the depression P&G took a step which changed not only that company but the broadcast medium forever while creating great demand for its products. The president of P&G at the time was Richard Deupree. In spite of the fact that shareholders were demanding that he cut back on advertising, he knew that people were still buying essential household products. So he created radio programming that did not focus on a product. Because of that, we now have a cultural attribute known as the “soap opera.”

In 1933, P&G went on the air with its first “soap” – “Ma Perkins,” sponsored by Oxydol. P&G was so satisfied with the increase of sales, they went on to introduce “Vic and Sadie” for Crisco, “O’Niells” for Ivory Soap and “Forever Young” for Camay. By the time 1939 rolled around, P&G was sponsoring 21 radio programs and they doubled their radio advertising budget every two years during the Depression.

Radio was one of the fastest growth industries of the depression. P&G virtually built daytime radio with its advertising budgets and programming. Two industries were thriving from the advertising budget of one.

The print media was also a growth industry during the Depression. To give some reason for this, we now return to Chevrolet. the first ads for Chevrolet appeared in print in 1914. In 1927, they began to increase their print advertising budget. As the country moved into the Depression a couple of years later, Chevy did not let its commitment to print advertising falter and its car ads not only kept some publications afloat, it helped many to grow. In as much as the term “print media” covers many outlets, they pioneered the outdoor advertising medium, billboards. Chevrolet also went into radio and sponsored such Depression Era classics as Fred Allen and Jack Benny. Chevy’s print ads appealed to the “emotional” side of a buying decision which was a great move in light of the economic uncertainty of the time.

So once again, those companies which took advantage of the Depression and came through in good form were those who kept their name in front of the public in spite of a lack of purchasing power.

Your question asks about a hierarchy of demand from essential consumables to deferrable purchases to capital goods. In reality there was no such hierarchy. I have tried to balance the examples given to show some spectrum across the board. Proctor and Gamble represents essential consumables, Chevrolet represents deferrable purchases and Camel represents non-essential products. So as you can see, the so called hierarchy of necessity and want was sidestepped by those who had the marketing gumption to ignore such distinctions.

However, capital goods information needs to reflect the entire economic structure of the Depression and not just those companies which were successful. Overall, new production of capital goods less capital goods consumed during the years 1929 – 1939 was near zero. The increase in the money supply during the 1920s also increased the prices of capital goods relative to the prices of consumer goods. This disparity set in motion a boom in real estate and stock market prices and interest rates were driven down by the “increase in Fed money.

It must also be noted that the preceding statement on capital goods is only one of many competing economic theories about the Depression. There are some who say this compounding of assertions is wrong from beginning to end. But in composing an answer such as this, there needs to be one which best meets the nature of the question and in conjunction with the material about public visibility covered above, this is the one your researcher ties into the equation. When money has entered the economy from whatever sources during business fluctuations in the past, has there been a disparity between the increases in prices of capital and consumer goods? That alone is a subject which would take volumes to answer. In fact, it would take volumes just to cover the debate without any resolution coming about.

As far as the end of the question as to what distinguished the companies that did well during the Depression? They were the companies that kept their name in front of the public and created brand name recognition even during the worst of times.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=178334

SEARCH – Google

TERMS
great depression, company growth great depression, great
depression success stories, brand name awareness great depression,
advertising history, new industry great depression, benefits of
advertising

REFERENCES:

“America’s Great Depression – Causes and Cures” -
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html

“H102 Lecture 19: The Great Depression and the New Deal” -
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture19.html -
University of Wisconsin, Stanley K. Schultz, Professor of History

“Sliding into the Great Depression” -
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Crash14.html – University of
California at Berkeley

“Great Myths of the Great Depression” -
http://www.uaca.ac.cr/acta/1998nov/lreed.htm – Universidad Aut noma de
Centro America

“Economic Surpluses” – http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/surplus.htm
- San Jose State University

“Accounting for the Great Depression” -
http:/www.stern.nyu.edu?~fperri/papers/account.pdf – a PDF file,
Acrobat Reader needed.

“Four Myths About America’s Great Depression” -
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economichistory/fourmyths.html
- From Liberty Haven

“EAP Vocabulary – Exercise” -
http://www.uefap.co.uk/vocab/exercise/buscycl.htm – some interesting
information about capital goods and business cycles here but mostly in
a modified glossary format

“Creating Mass Culture” -
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am485_98/graham/mass.html -
University of Virginia

“The Visitor in Your Living Room: Radio Advertising in the 1930s” -
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am485_98/graham/visitor.html -
University of Virginia