Move That Bus! Revealing 
Consumerism and Materialism in 
Real Estate Programs 
Evan Kropp, Graduate Student 
University of Hartford – School of Communication 
2011
Introduction 
 Ideologies 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
Television 
 TV 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 Shows 
 Lost 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 Shows 
 Burton Jablin, Scripps Network 
 House Hunters based on false reality 
 Business Week Article on House 
Hunters International
Extreme Makeover: Home 
Edition 
 Premiered 2003 
 No educational value 
 Fairy tale 
 Aligned with dominant 
ideologies 
 Provides false hope
Extreme Makeover: Home 
Edition 
 Change 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 
Edition 
 Morality 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)
Conclusions 
 What 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?
Conclusions 
 Harmful 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_estat 
e_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.

Revealing Consumerism and Materialism in Real Estate Programs

  • 1.
    Move That Bus!Revealing Consumerism and Materialism in Real Estate Programs Evan Kropp, Graduate Student University of Hartford – School of Communication 2011
  • 2.
    Introduction  Ideologiesof capitalism in modern society and the relationship between: ◦ Television real estate programs ◦ The politics of consumption ◦ The myth of the American Dream
  • 3.
    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
  • 4.
    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
  • 5.
    Television  TVviewership increasing  Many shows based on theme of “learning”  Real Estate programs teach the politics of consumption and reinforcing the myth of the American dream.
  • 6.
    Real Estate Shows  Lost 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
  • 7.
    Real Estate Shows  Burton Jablin, Scripps Network  House Hunters based on false reality  Business Week Article on House Hunters International
  • 8.
    Extreme Makeover: Home Edition  Premiered 2003  No educational value  Fairy tale  Aligned with dominant ideologies  Provides false hope
  • 9.
    Extreme Makeover: Home Edition  Change 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?
  • 10.
    Extreme Makeover: Home Edition  Morality 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)
  • 11.
    Conclusions  Whatis missing from these shows? ◦ Costs  Who benefits from these shows? ◦ Large corporations ◦ Small local organizations ◦ Networks & cable channels ◦ Show personalities  What about the viewers?
  • 12.
    Conclusions  Harmfulmessages… ◦ 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
  • 13.
    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_estat e_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.