Eileen Meehan's "Holy Commodity Fetishism, Batman!" states, "The film per se becomes only one component in a product line that extends beyond the theater, even beyond our contact with mass media, to penetrate the markets for toys, bedding, trinkets, cups and the other minutiae comprising one's everyday life inside a commoditized, consumerized culture."
Meehan didn't really go into much detail when referring to "commodity fetishism." Her use of the term is implicit. Luckily, I took a course two years ago (JOUR 3745 - Mass Media & Popular Culture) where I learned about the term "commodity fetishism." Commodity fetishism is "the tendency to attribute to commodities (including money) a power that really inheres only in the labor expended to create commodities." The effect of commodity fetishism is caused by the fact that, in a capitalist society, the real producers (in this case, WCI) remain invisible. Granted, WCI did a remarkable job with the marketing of Batman as a whole. However, how many of us actually thought about WCI when thinking of Batman and all of its profitability?
Discussion Question: Between Marx's critique of commodity fetishism and the idea of cultivating brand loyal for your film, how has marketing these products for films changed today? Have they changed at all? Do you think producers are still using Marx's critique of commodity fetishism as a form of business profit today? Why or why not?