Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Apply Consumer Culture Theory to analyze consumption as a cultural practice shaped by identity, marketplace cultures, and ideology. Use this skill when the user needs to interpret consumer behavior through cultural lenses, analyze brand communities or subcultures of consumption, decode marketplace ideologies, or when they ask 'why do consumers behave this way culturally', 'what does this consumption mean', or 'how does identity shape buying'.
.claude/skills/asgard-ai-platform-grad-cct/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -12% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -27% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -56% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 5% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 95% | 0% |
Consumer Culture Theory is a family of research perspectives that study consumption as culturally constituted practice rather than purely economic choice. CCT examines four domains: consumer identity projects, marketplace cultures, sociohistoric patterning of consumption, and mass-mediated marketplace ideologies (Arnould & Thompson, 2005).
IRON LAW: Consumption is a cultural practice, NOT merely an economic
decision. Every purchase, use, and disposal act carries symbolic
meaning that cannot be reduced to utility maximization.Key assumptions:
| Domain | Focus | Key Questions | |--------|-------|---------------| | Consumer Identity Projects | How consumers forge identity through consumption | How does this product/brand serve self-narrative? | | Marketplace Cultures | Communities, subcultures, brand tribes | What shared meanings bind this consumption community? | | Sociohistoric Patterning | Institutional and social structures shaping consumption | How do class, gender, ethnicity pattern these choices? | | Mass-Mediated Ideologies | How media and marketing shape consumer ideology | What ideological messages does this marketplace convey? |
CCT primarily uses qualitative methods:
Map the web of meanings surrounding the consumption practice:
Connect findings to broader cultural patterns. Identify implications for brand strategy, market creation, or social policy.
markdown## CCT Analysis: [Consumption Context] ### Domain Classification - Primary domain: [identity / marketplace culture / sociohistoric / ideology] - Cultural context: [describe the setting] ### Cultural Meaning Map | Element | Meaning | Evidence | |---------|---------|----------| | [practice/object] | [symbolic meaning] | [data source] | ### Identity / Community Dynamics - Consumer narrative themes: ... - Community rituals and boundaries: ... - Tensions and contradictions: ... ### Strategic / Theoretical Implications 1. [Insight for brand/market strategy] 2. [Contribution to cultural understanding]
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 39,548 | 26,731 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,271 | 4,629 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 38,996 | 20,294 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,604 | 3,916 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 33,356 | 19,091 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,022 | 3,673 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 29,381 | 8,433 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,904 | 2,178 | -56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 24,426 | 20,088 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,058 | 4,243 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 9,943 | 13,069 | +31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,825 | 3,564 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 33,811 | 23,878 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,864 | 4,374 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 18,433 | 19,755 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,778 | 3,499 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 23,081 | 14,957 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,364 | 3,163 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 20,680 | 16,756 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,035 | 3,413 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 17,256 | 15,436 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,325 | 3,310 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 23,494 | 22,789 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,397 | 4,290 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 19,967 | 15,325 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,003 | 3,149 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 25,078 | 17,861 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,016 | 3,678 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 19,282 | 16,476 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,144 | 3,453 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 21,154 | 16,456 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,109 | 3,320 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 17,890 | 20,894 | +17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,817 | 3,900 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 19,827 | 19,771 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,807 | 3,804 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 12,066 | 11,404 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,804 | 2,571 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 23,805 | 18,541 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,880 | 3,705 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 21,944 | 17,781 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,059 | 3,561 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 20,310 | 17,144 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,049 | 3,205 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 15,614 | 19,488 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,361 | 3,804 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | fail→pass | 31,043 | 17,292 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,416 | 3,505 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 24 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +38 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 24 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.