I bet there are many more people in Asia listening to western pop music, seeing western films and generally taking in western cultures, than people in the west doing the same for Asian cultures.

Why is this so? What is it about western films, in particularly American, that appeal to us so much? Why do we like listening to their music? Why do we crave for McDonald's and KFC, when they are well known as junk food?

Please provide your input. :cheers:

"The Moon Is more beautiful in Other places"
An Chinese saying....

Honestly, Western now are busying learning Eastern's culture while the Easterns are crazying on Westerns.

I guess this is like a common Human Behavior...
Like we might always think that Other's wife or Husbands (Or boy/girl friends) are Always better than ours...
But in reality, We could be wrong... :sweatdrop:

The grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side ;)

Nice topic, mait. Worked on a similar project during my MBA, so have a few thoughts on this.

Although I agree to a certain extent to windhead's observation of 'the grass being greener on the other side", there is more to this subject that meets the eye.

The "American Appeal" of anything American - be it food, music, art, films, cars, etc. started off with the USA marketing that appeal within their borders until the 1970's. When a lot of companies realized that just selling/marketing their products and services within their borders faced saturation, they pushed their brands/products and services overseas.

They used their marketing muscle to push initially within their borders what they called "The American Dream", i.e. go to college, get laid, have fun, get a degree, marry your college sweetheart, buy a 2-storey home in a suburb, and have 2-3 kids, and live happily ever after.

After the recession in the 80's - they marketed overseas what they called 'freedom' within their products and services. The Americans realized that they were the only true and free democracy in the world, and leveraged their political freedom to push their products!

They pushed their products to Europe, where constitutional monarchies ruled, to Eastern Europe and Russia where communism ruled. Onwards to Asia, where rebellious attitudes ( popularized in their music & music videos ), were all the rage, and still are to an extent.

They used snazzy ads to sell a slice of 'American Freedom'. Those who were rich enough, fell for those marketing spiels and actually emigrated to the USA from their communist/socialist regumes. Hence the great wave of Eastern Europeans/Russians immigration in the 80's and early 90's. Those who could not afford/were too poor to go to the Promised Land, had to make do with a slice of Pizza Hut, gulp down a can of Coke, smoke a Marlboro, and wear a pair of fake Levis 501 jeans to at least dream that one day, they would make it across the shores to financial and political freedom.

Look at the example of the great brands - Pepsi, Coke, Pizza Hut, Mc Donalds, Levis, Disney, Marlboro, etc. Out of the Top 10 most valuable brands globally, 8 of them are from the USA. (Source : BW Online). This shows how much US companies globalize, in order not just to sell their products, but at the same time, sell their culture.

That's my 2 c's on this. :2thumbsup:

There's a specific term for this, popular culture. I don't think it's because it appeals to the masses but rather it was made available to the masses. McDonalds, Western movies and music are able to transcend national borders and boundaries and this has affected the way we consume products. However i wouldn't say that their own national culture has been taken for granted either because nowadays more people realise that there could be a Western domination, kinda like a new form of colonialism which could affect their own national identity and nation states are trying hard to preserve this but at the same time they still allow Western commodities into their country as well, purely for business interests and increasing the flow of capital to their country just to accomodate what it means to be 'modern'.

i agree with u on few pts esp the pt abt american dream.
i have always felt that this thing really touches us deep down inside, as u mentioned abt gettin laid, marrying the person of our choice and having a nice house with 2 kids. wat esle does a person want?


well it's all abt mkting strategies :)


i mean when u advertise ur products saying ........... "coz' i am worth it "........women can surely not ignore it !
when u talk abt "beauty" being ur right........when u talk abt "freedom" wear........when utalk bat feminity.........relating beauty to romance ..........who wud'nt fall for it ?????

So what you guys are saying is that marketing plays a huge role in shaping our tastes and desires?

I wouldn't say that marketing alone affects our tastes our desires, but rather the processes of globalisation and capitalism has changed the way we consume products. It has created a homogenous product without realising that everyone has different needs and wants. I don't think i would want everything to be the same, variety is definitely much better. :thumbsup:

So you're saying the east isn't as plugged in as the west, and is not able to take full advantage of globalization to promote its culture?

I guess this is The Difference between East & West . ;)

The West won't feel shy to do anything to promote their Culture/Business to The East by flooding The Medias here such as TV commercials, Radio,Magazines & Papers....etc with their Products like KFC, McDonalds , Pepsi, MarieFrance , Dell , Nike , NBA , BarclaysPremiership.....

So, we can see, The Wests are always promote Their "Products" WISELy by mastering Their superb marketing strategies...

However, The New developed Eastern branded had already begins to invading The Wests now... We can tell by Looking at The Superb Marketing Strategies by Samsung , Honda , Toyota.....

:cheers:

Not necessarily, i didn't say that the east is far behind in terms of taking full advantage of globalisation to promote its culture. I'm just saying that most people have the perception that if globalisation fully takes over, then there will be a Western domination, but we have yet to know what will happen in the future. What we're really discussing here is known as cultural imperialism whereby there is a domination of a particular culture being promoted and practised.

Its not only bout marketing..its got a lot of economics attached to it........atleast in india....pressures from wto, imf n other international trade org etc r forcing us to open our economies to even more western brands ....them being superpowers there snot much we can do about it.......though this is not a bad thing...im all for the idea of globalisation...it has got huge benefits for india..... but i do feel that this whole concept of globalisation is selective....it means that western brands can gain entry into smaller countries while the west itself mite not be as open to foreign brands coming in.....
so again what t comes down to is what trueblue said... the level of exposure they get to our culture n the way we r exposed to their culture eevryday.....slowly i do see some parts of our culture permeating the west....it mite not be too much but its a start...

Its more to do with us being developing countries & them being developed ones. Its natural for us to be awed by their culture.

So whatever they do will become a trend here too, since we consider them superior to us (somewhere inside us, we do), we will try to ape them. After all, our ancestors were apes, right?

That's a very good point there, zid. Being a developed or developing country plays a major role in determining whether what culture should be embraced according to society. The West, being the developed country certainly has more power in enforcing what culture should be practised whereas the developing countries do not have the resources to promote their culture. However, i wouldn't say that there is an awe for a certain culture because nowadays there is still some form of resistance from various unions.

exactly...thats what i mean....they have the resources n the power to decide who influences what......i want call it being awed.....its just a matter of what choices r available to us....n when we have huge intnl brads competing with smaller local ones we all know who will win out...
i wont agree with the comment abut aping the west...mybe a few people do...but largely...why do we have mcdonalds food, drink coke , n wear adidas etc....its not just because we want to ape the west...its because they r the best options available to us......n what or what not is available to us is decided by the developed countries themselves.....

No, Diya. They are not the best options available to us. Its just that we make them look like the best.

We are possessed by this 'Brand Addiction'. Why do we have to wear only Adidas or Nike? Do you know that 90% of all the stuff they sell in India is made in India itself?

Why drink Coke & Pep? They are anything but healthy. Why cant we drink something Indian?

Why do we eat at McDonalds? I really hate it, they just give you crap food in good packing & american tag.

It has become a status symbol to ape Western Culture, I know it & you know it too. Heck, even I dont wear anything but Adidas despite knowing all this.

This has become something very difficult to break free from. If this is not 'apeing the west', then what is?

C I think I can speak a bit bout this as I m kinda versed with both east and west.
I say both R liars, if America shows U sumthng like "American Dream" thts a lie and then at the same time "Indian Dream" is a lie too.
V here R told tht India is a land of culture, this and tht, my granny warned me, not to ask a grl for a date, dnt do this with a grl dnt do tht, n cud U believe it I was the only person in my grp of 5 guys and 8 grls who never used to drink or smoke.

U R a democratic govt too, Y U blame US for all the ills.
If pple R smoking, its coz US, if they R drinkin, its coz of US, if they R wearing those hanky panky clothes, its coz of US. Its not coz of US its coz of U URSELF, who always wanted to do tht, who always had a secret desire of doing all tht.

I bet 75% of grls in these forums drinks or will strt drinking. Now dnt say coz west market beer in sucha way.
U dnt like movies of Ur own local lang, its not of west's or US's marketing strategies but coz U hav tht inside U.
Its not tht all hollywood movie R grt, U havnt seen the movies which R :yucks:
Even V make horrible movies but U C those American Pies and all n curse Ur own cinema.
I think tht wenever these kinda discussions take place most of the pple try to put the blame on western marketing or western ideas, but no one takes the blame on themselves.
No one says tht yes V R at fault.
Go to Europe n U cant talk in English over there, they will C U as some insect who dsnt deserve to b acknowledged, they R so possessive bout their own lang their own tradition, but in countries like India speaking English is considered "KEWL".
Luk at the interviews of Zizou, Raul, Ronaldo, they will not speak in english, they dnt even bother to learn english, but luk at the interviews of ne established actor of Indian cinema, they feel ashamed while speaking hindi which has given them so much.
The fault is there in Ur own phsychology, for a change stop blaming west for tht, west is just takin advantage of Ur own phsychology.


N Diya bout WTO, India agreed to open gates for tht wen they took loan frm wrld bank, its was one of the conditions of providing the loan.

n tell me how many of U support Ur local brands??????
who dsnt want to wear Wrangler which is considered as a low brand in US atleast.
Who dnt wanna wear Levis ???
the thng is U urself dnt give ne encouragement to Ur local brands, luk at the sight of Indian handloom industry, this is sumthng even west is fond of, but see how it is dying.
Pashmeena shawls, Kashmere woolen is so so so so famous here tht U can get watever price U want to, but still pple of India will go to tht Woodland showroom.
Its India itself which is killing its own identity.
take the blame on urself thts the first step to improve conditions

Exactly Zizou, prob is with Indian phsychology itself, n U saying tht in India stuff is made in India, the biggest of brands here in US sell their stuff which has a label "Made in India"
Yes I m in complete agreement with U, pple R aping WEST, west is just being a salesman doin its sales pretty gud.

I think both of you have your points. But unfortunately, Diya, I don't think you brought in the right examples.

Brands like Coke or McDonald's are exactly the best for us. Else why they are called junk food in USA? ;)

But let's take watches or cars as examples. It's kind of hard to dispute the fact that Switzerland and Europe produce the best watches and automobiles, at least in terms of quality. Can a Seiko watch compare with a Rolex? No way. Or a Toyota to a Benz? :nono: Lexus is doing a pretty good job in catch up with the European brands in the luxurious segment of the market. But I think they still have some way to go before they match the pedigree of the old marquee.

But let's not confine our focus to products only. How about literature? Do most people prefer to read a John Grisham to a local author? Why?

Too right Maits, its a problem of phsychology of pple rather than the west, else Y pple read John Grisham, Y dnt neone try to read their local author, I tell U bout India atleast, pple will read to some local author wen he/she is acllaimed by so called west not before tht.

n as Maits said bout Mc Donalds, we hate it, U knw if V hav to go on exquisite date we prefer Asian restraunt. ;)

Nice Topic this Maitam :thumbsup:

I'll try to offer a different panorama than what has been brought up in this topic uptil now besides the marketing strategies of the West (U.S.).I think MCA has its roots in history...

Well,I think Mass Cultural Appeal or Popular Culture as TB mentioned is partly influenced by the Colonization of East by West from the early 1500's - late 1900's.They have imbibed their culture into the lifestyle of the Eastern populace.Also,through colonization they first killed the industry base of the eastern countries and brought in stuff made in west after the Industrial Revolution in 1800's and that stuff being cheap due to economies of scale started selling thick and fast in Eastern Countries and also due to boycott of Local goods.Also,the Eastern Populace was in awe of the lifestyle portrayed by the Western people at the times of colonization due to poverty and lesser standard of their living.Foreign Education for youth of the colonized countries didn't help either.

Now-a-days there has been a huge cultural affluence in Eastern Countries with mixture of Western and Eastern styles of dressing,music,way of living being led.This is reasonably lower in Western Countries as they take pride in the life they have been living and their way of doing things.Although,now the world being closer than it was ever before due to lesser communication gap,the west is also catching in on eastern culture.Eg.Chinese Food is very famous in the U.S.

Coming to Brand Favouritism,I would say that finally quality counts.A person would go for a particular thing if its good in quality.For E.g. Even tho the goods might be made in India but sold in the name of the Foreign Brands,the Foreign companies have a strict quality check which the local companies lack in.You would go in for a pair of 'Levi's Jeans' over 'Sunnex'-an Indian Brand because of their acclaimed quality and nothing else.However,in case of Mc Donald's...although they serve crap food,people think its hip to eat there instead to feast on local cuisine at a local eatery.And also that MAC is a widely publicised and a huge chain restaurant.However,there is no significant Eastern Food Chain which has such an influence even in Asia,let alone the West.

And then there is the saying mentioned earlier..."The grass is greener o nthe other side."

zid n mav...i totally get what yr saying here.....
but to say that foreign products do well just cos theyr status symbols is not entirely true........some of em r status symbols definitely without question........but india is a country with most of the people belonging to middle n low income groups...for a brand to gain mass appeal here its got to have something more....

If i want to go grab a quick bite with my friends......what r the option that i have...mc donalds, pizza hut, dominoes, subway,(all foreign ) n the lone indian fast food joint nirulas (which i still go to often).....sure there are tons of other good indian restaurants...which will serve food ten times better than mcdnlds...but none of them are as cheap or as easily available than the ones ive mentioned....as a consumer...id rather spend 20 bux on eating a mcdonalds burger around the corner... not because its a status symbol (mcdonalds -status symbol?...definitely not...these days even my family driver eats at mcdnlds..) but becuase thats the one which is the most convenient overall......
for a brand to do well in india...its gotto be something more than justa status symboil....consumers r not dumb.......when mcdonalds first opened....it set upo a completely inappropriate menu with ridicuLous prices.....it didnt work AT ALL.....the only reason its doing so well now is because of the changes it made ....making its menu indian oriented n reducing prices.....had it not done that ....it would have hardly dont he kind of business its doing now.......
Mav im not even talking about the dirnking n smoking culture....cos i cvomletely agree with u there ....stuff like that is not because of the west its because of oursleves....I think its a stupid excuse to day that "wetsern culture is ruining todays generation"....all i ws talking about was in terms of our economy being opened up..
Im not blaming the us for it n im not blaming indian psychology for it....its just pure competition......survival of the fittest as they say......In some cases the "fittest" will be foreign products because they have the resources ..resources to mass produce ,advertise , promote, etc.. ...but in some cases (wher we do have the resources to compete) itll be local brands...bollywood does more than four times the amount of business in india than hollywood does....cos its a quality industry....it can give any film industry a run for its money.......gimme nirulas icecreams over baskin robbins anyday (n nirulas is doing better than them anyway)....so whenever local brands will have the resources n quality to compete with intnl brands theyll definitely do well.....
U mentioned wto mav...thats exactly what im talking about...as a developing nation....whenver we take a loan...there are these conditions imposed on us which open our markets to foreign products....US doesnt go trhough all that cos its a superpower....so people there r not as exposed to foreign products as we are..........Its nobodys fault...its just the way it works....

Let me digress a bit here. Even middle class can have aspiration to own something because of status symbol. Mobile phones, for example. It's not so expensive that only the upper class can afford one. But you can also see people upgrading their phones and constantly looking for the newest models. That's definitely not because of functional needs.

I don't know the situation in India, but I dare say some people go to certain restaurants because they are the 'in' place to be seen in.

I TTLY AGREE WITH U !
u said it all, we all had a secret desire which was fulfiled by them.





BT STILL THE qUES REMAINS UNANS, wat is the reason behind this?
is it all abt "ideological hegemony" "the pwr of money"

:feedback:

:cheers:

Whoa...ideological hegemony, ritambhara, you study social science? :o Well, all these terms are inter-related to one another and it all leads to capitalism and other issues of concern. I would say that power relations, and not necessarily money is one reason behind the flow of cultural products that transcends from one border to another. By the way, can you please explain why you added ideological with the term hegemony? Does that mean hegemony is perceived and not a fact of life?

:lol: This is getting more and more philosophical :idea:

TB has brought up capitalism .why am i not surprised :rolleyes: .I am kidding , kidding .

I am kidding , TB .Just a joke lol .Besides i didnt exactly understand what u or RT said in the last two replies :D . So i thougth the best way to reply to it was via a joke :goof:

Anyway coming to the topic .

There are two ways to look at it .

(1) Excellent marketing

(2) Excellent product

From a business perspective ,(1) and (2) results in a very good sale .

western products will have both , thus the mass cultural appeal .

EPL is the most widely watched league in India .

In terms of (2) , it has competition from Serie A , La Liga and the South American leagues .And mind u , if we take the last say 20 years as a yardstick to determine the viewers of football of this generation , mind u EPL would only be third behind Serie A and La Liga .

But in terms of (1) , it is the best .

thus most people watch it .

Or take tennis .

Soo many people in this forum wanted Henman to win Wimbledon .

In this case , (2) is not upto the mark .

But however (1) is brilliant .

Thus many people feel that Henman is a grascourt specialist when in reality he hasnt won ONE grasscourt tournament in his life .


Or take players like say Lampard .People talk of him as world class .Is he world class - yes .But mind u , he is as good as a Seedorf or Davids at their best .Its a fact .

But the way we have (1) in Asia , people talk of a lampard in the same breath as a ronaldinho :shocking: .

Anyway i brought sports examples to make it easier as to how the phenomenon of mass cultural appeal takes place .(becoz after all this is a sports forum , so we could understand it better from a sports perspective)

Guess it should explain everything .

Apply it to anything we see in our day to day life .

In all honesty , however , most western products are pretty good .

However in the case of McDonalds etc , thats where( 1) comes to the fore .

Considering it from a product perspective, yes. After all, western nations stepped onto the path to industrialization much earlier than the rest of the world.

But what is perplexing is that most people seem to find Hollywood movies or western novels more appealing than those from Asia. What is it about them that hit just the right spot in our psychic?

Actually maitam , shouldnt we give credit to Hollywood movies .

I mean , the special effects in Hollywood movies is unmatched .

Add to that the element of sex , we have a very attractive package , mind u .

Besides , if i am not mistaken , only the big Hollywood movies make an impact in the east .Remaining focus goes to local movies.

As for books , no comments becoz i really dont read books as such .Too lazy .

:hmm: Maybe Bollywood should start incorporating the Kama Sutra into their movies :sleazy:

lol dont see that happeneing in the near future .

But believe me , if that happens , i will be watching more indian movies than usual :goof:

I m sorry to reply so late but may b it wnt b worthless.
Diya U said US is not affected by open arket :o
no lass come here n pick up ne damn clothing of Old Navvy, Banana Republic, n many other top brands their manufacturing is in India.
now U sau US dsnt get affected due to its superpower status, remember bout the wrd Bangaloored?????
it means wen sumthng is outsourced, Outsourcing was such an issue over here tht we even invented a wrd by the name of Indian city which takes care of most of the outsourcing.
Outsourcing did a lotta damage to US job industry initially.
Similarily if U make a call to British Railway frm sumwhere in britain the phone will b picked up sumwhere in India.
So saying opening economy just effect the developing countries is not justified, it has its pros and cons.
the thng is again the mentallity of pple in Asia, just walk across in the streets of CP goras (whites) will b getting much more importance by every1.
My granny used to say tht we R sick by this gora(white) color.
Y Tom Cruise is hooter or Brad Pitt is sexier???
Y west hav so much of appeal tht Asians do change their whole mentallity.
just a few mnths before we had a thread tht fat pple R not concerned hot, V hav always imagines slimer the better, its a part of our mentallity and similarily goes fairer the better.
India and other asian countries R blindly chasing west or watever coz of their own mentallity, I hav seen craze in pple to come to US, upto such an extent tht they wantd their daughters to marry me and come here on dependent VISAs n guess wat I was about to b paid for tht marriage, sumwhere like 30 grands of USDs. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Its this mentallity of pple which is affecting the culture of Asians.

I guess Ritu the prob is in the fact tht India had been so long under British rule tht their mentallity is still effected by it, still speakin english is a must among clg frnds, speaking local lang is useless, n speaking ones mother tounge, hindi, is considerd absolute disgrace.
there is sumthng wrng sumwhere at our end only blaming west will not gonna help.
may b the cause of the problem is tht west is richer but trst me we hav so many probs, generally all of us over here R deep down inside debts, our cards hav been swept so many times tht pple dnt pick up the phones tht it might b card companies demanding their money bak.
V R in a deep scum, our current generation lives on dope, pple prefer buying 20 dollars of lottery rather than 50 cent candy for their children, they will beg for all day, collect all the peinies and will come to buy a beer rather than sumthng to eat.
LA, once THE grtst city of the wrld is plagued with mafia and gangwars, dopes all arnd, homeless on streets, girls getting at least 2 abortions till the age of 18, thts so sick, but still west attracts I dun knw Y :lol:

well, i wanted to refresh this topic and wanted some :feedback: on it !

after having studied abt it for long i can somehow relate this whole situation of "west's" (if i may use the term) supremacy over east or elsewhere !

wat is ideological hegemony?

the term was propounded by antonio gramsci, a marxist heir !

Ideological Hegemony
Gramsci accepted the analysis of capitalism put forward by Marx in the previous century and accepted that the struggle between the ruling class and the subordinate working class was the driving force that moved society forward. What he found unacceptable was the traditional Marxist view of how the ruling class ruled. It was here that Gramsci made a major contribution to modern thought in his concept of the role played by ideology.

Often the term "ideology" is seen as referring simply to a system of ideas and beliefs. However, it is closely tied to the concept of power and the definition given by Anthony Giddens is probably the easiest to understand. Giddens defines ideology as "shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests of dominant groups" [Giddens 1997 p583] Its relationship to power is that it legitimises the differential power that groups hold and as such it distorts the real situation that people find themselves in.

subtle but pervasive forms of ideological control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all repressive structures. He identified two quite distinct forms of political control: domination, which referred to direct physical coercion by police and armed forces and hegemony which referred to both ideological control and more crucially, consent. He assumed that no regime, regardless of how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself primarily through organised state power and armed force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legitimacy in order to maintain stability.

By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations.

Marx’s basic division of society into a base represented by the economic structure and a superstructure represented by the institutions and beliefs prevalent in society was accepted by most Marxists familiar with the concepts. Gramsci took this a step further when he divided the superstructure into those institutions that were overtly coercive and those that were not. The coercive ones, which were basically the public institutions such as the government, police, armed forces and the legal system he regarded as the state or political society and the non-coercive ones were the others such as the churches, the schools, trade unions, political parties, cultural associations, clubs, the family etc. which he regarded as civil society. To some extent, schools could fit into both categories. Parts of school life are quite clearly coercive (compulsory education, the national curriculum, national standards and qualifications) whilst others are not (the hidden curriculum).

So for Gramsci, society was made up of the relations of production (capital v labour); the state or political society (coercive institutions) and civil society (all other non-coercive institutions).

Now, if Gramsci was correct that the ruling class maintained its domination by the consent of the mass of the people and only used its coercive apparatuses, the forces of law and order, as a last resort, what were the consequences for Marxists who wished to see the overthrow of that same ruling class? If the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class resulted from an ideological bond between the rulers and the ruled, what strategy needed to be employed? The answer to those questions was that those who wished to break that ideological bond had to build up a ‘counter hegemony’ to that of the ruling class. They had to see structural change and ideological change as part of the same struggle. The labour process was at the core of the class struggle but it was the ideological struggle that had to be addressed if the mass of the people were to come to a consciousness that allowed them to question their political and economic masters right to rule. It was popular consensus in civil society that had to be challenged and in this we can see a role for informal education.

Overcoming popular consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant that the majority of the population accepted what was happening in society as ‘common sense’ or as ‘the only way of running society’. There may have been complaints about the way things were run and people looked for improvements or reforms but the basic beliefs and value system underpinning society were seen as either neutral or of general applicability in relation to the class structure of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for a bigger slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the bakery.

source : www.infed.org !


well, it might not explain the whole pwr relation, but in simple terms we can say that, being a superpwr when a ocuntry endorses a product it becomes a hegemon as in barnd initself and when "we" as ppl not adhere to such a norm we are regarded as "abnormal".

it is just all about pwr relatins !

Anyone who is still interested in finding the answers to why American films, music etc are so popular, please read Adorno and Horkheimer's article on the culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. A long read but worth the time to read.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...s/ge/adorno.htm

You've hit the nail on the head there mate :clapping:
They are not the best option available to us, they are made out to be the best option.
Marketing of American goods in the East has such a phenomenal effect.
Ever since the rapid industrialisation of the west, people in the east strive to become more like them coz they assume them to be the pinnacle of society.

I think the reasn maybe that they are marketed in such a way that they succeed even if there is absoutely no substance behind the storyline.