Consumption Matters

SHIFTS IN ASPECTS OF CONSUMERISM; FROM CONTENT LED TO MARKETING LED
An increasing oversupply of products and services tends towards marketeers employing tactics of encouraging over-consumption as a by-product of enticing people to change products and services necessitated because they are in over-supply. A pernicious circle that quietly but continuously reduces genuine quality of life.

This results in a shift from the content - the product or nature of a service itself - to focussing on effects or the belief in what possessing or experiencing such a thing will do for us, in terms of our perceived sense of happiness or life satisfaction.

As such, differences between what is on offer, tends to reduce and become stratified into consumption bands. Eg, cars: family, sports, off-road, city. The designs become very similar and differences within one type are there to distinguish them for marketing purposes, not as anything relevant to actual design or function; design as distinct from styling and image.

The actual consumer, ironically, drops out of the loop in any meaningful sense, apart from generic demographic profiling and overall marketing statistics.

Control of the supply becomes key, but with consequences on those actually producing the goods. They become subject to narrowing bands of options, combined with inconsistent demand, or fluctuating price paid for the supply of their product. This has the direst consequences on those most vulnerable, such as small-scale farmers. Supermarkets gaining too control over supply of food to the point where they can dictate the narrow range of genuine choice requires a sleight of hand in marketing terms, to make us believe we are purchasing from within a range that has been especially selected to bring us only the best.

Becoming more focussed on a tightening circle of interest means we become increasingly divorced from the implications of our actions, choices and exchanges.

One of the results of the narrowing of choice and supply, and something that is used as a marketing strand in itself, is things becoming cheaper, but often too cheap. Sometimes something can seem too cheap for what it is, if you consider how it is made and what it is made of. As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. There has to be consequences, such as inappropriate and un-sustainable use of resources.

CONSEQUENCES
This narrowing of choice needs to be disguised and leads to a shift or distortion of the overall situation, stretching what is not really so important, and squashing that which is; heightening awareness of something relatively insignificant, keeping something banal more in our minds than the topic warrants; raising something of relatively minor importance above its subsistence or administration level, and getting us thinking about it more than is appropriate.

Narrowing, or telescoping, the field of consideration exacerbates relatively minor differences, which takes our focus off the bigger picture. Each notion tends to be small, not enough in themselves to cause great concern, but together more significant, although difficult to appreciate that way, which makes it more subversive.

This process tends to go hand in hand with a shift from providing a service or product with a reasonable profit, to maximising profits, in tandem with increasing desire for things we want (rather than things we really need), such as the replacement of latest model, as part of being ‘up-to-date’, despite nothing being wrong with that already owned, and being considered inferior by not having the latest. This consequently also shifts focus from content/quality of product to more subjective notions of possession, as well as sales based on strength of marketing, rather than the product or service itself.

EXAMPLES OF SHIFTS IN NATURE OF PROVISION OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
1. Increasingly:
- More difficult to alter agreements and easier to sign up, and a focus on signing up initially, often involving a direct debit, and often complemented by less follow up service. Eg, utilities, who are then in a position to raise direct debits without notification, again relying on many people not picking up on it straight away, or being bothered to lower it again.
- More difficult to contact (usually service provision) businesses, including phone messages with endless and circular options, and web-sites with no e-mails (becomes like TV: one way) – which puts people off. Also, access to actual products. By buying something without trying it because of difficult access, such as on-line or out-of-stock, we pay up-front, and then receive it at a later date, when it becomes a hassle to return it, so tend to be content with it.
- Obtaining payment in a lump sum early on, such as 0% on credit cards, but with an ‘administration’ fee. Dividing the fee down into interest that would be paid, quickly deduces if the 0% period is worth it overall. But if not, the money has been paid in a lump sum up front, earning interest for the provider. Not at a huge loss to the ‘consumer’, but accumulatively of much benefit to the provider.

2. Advertising portraying simple or tedious matters as warranting an emotional response (eg, Norwich Union’s quote-me-happy; Confused.com’s easier to use web-site). It also draws us into spending disproportionate time on issues such as personal administration. These two work complementarily, and subtly shifts our framing and relative balance of which issues are important, and their nature (which issues have emotional content).

3. Product or service shifting. Eg, clothes washing product: from powder to liquid to tablet to powder again. When did train users become customers rather than passengers?

4. Arbitrary parameters decided more towards a provider’s favour, than what is required by consumers. Eg mortgages at less than 100%. What is really required for a mortgage (first time buyers) is over 100%, to cover capital for the property, fees, and setting up home (this has knock on effects of people buying items for the home on credit – good for providers). Although, people have to wait longer to purchase their first home, which is good in the sense of having to think about it and not rush in, although often it means many people simply cannot buy an appropriate home (size, location, etc). In light of financial crises over late 2008/ early 2009, the matter of being able to borrow over 100%, needs to be distinguished from people being lent too much money due to over-heated markets.

5. Use of generic language to mislead. Eg, customer service stated to have been ‘improved’, when clearly it is subjective. Improved in what sense? Actually better for the customer, or really just more cost effective for provider?

6. Production of confusing information in the guise of legal documentation, inhibiting the clear understanding of that which is being sold. Eg, mortgage offers: figures not appearing in a clear spreadsheet, but spread out amongst documents in different formats, making it difficult to make like for like comparisons.

7. The aforementioned narrowing of the field of consideration, which takes our focus off the bigger picture. Eg, investment percentage returns, generally being within a few points of each other, and therefore, unless considering larger sums than many of us have, makes very little real difference. Such as, introduction of paying interest on cheques from the day it is paid in (Lloyds TSB), which makes little difference in terms of actual cash, but makes us customers feel better; but merely a ploy to gain more customers. This plays on people’s sense of ‘revenge’, and believe they are ‘getting back’ at financial institutions, but really no more than smoke and mirrors, shifting focus from genuine issues. Why do financial transfers take any time at all if transferred electronically, with mutual agreements between providers to return sums if a mistake is made?

8. Development of products beyond significant difference. Eg, razors, stereo, toothbrushes, and particularly, hair and beauty products. No doubt that each subsequent model is ‘better’ than the previous, but if that improvement is beyond the realm of significant difference, then this questions relevance of those improvements.

9. Fees for applications/ administration. When the level is set at a certain amount, not enough to refuse (if that’s an option, but often not, such as mortgage application or survey), but just enough to annoy, but we still tend to proceed. Accumulatively, these are very significant for receiver, but based on many small amounts not significant to each person. Eg, restaurants adding 12.5% ‘service charge’ as part of main bill. Also, the hassle/ embarrassment prevents most from taking it off. Budget airlines are apparent masters at charging for a whole array of things, but results in annoying people, when overall, the final price is still good.

10. Default of maximising profits as un-questioned. Eg, banks stating that re-introduction of account charges as ‘inevitable’ as profits are squeezed in other areas.

11. Too much choice of an apparent large range, but with little genuine difference between them, drawing too much time to something that does not warrant it. Eg, choosing toothpaste in a supermarket.

Overall, the result is to actually reduce genuine choice and aspects of quality of life, whether that is too much time spent on something relatively insignificant, or loss of choice, such as rarer types of apples. Also, by limiting time to consider fuller range of what may be available. Eg, a family eating ready-meals because they (have been led to) believe that they have very little time, and quick food gains them more time and choice. But in reality, while each at one sitting may have a different meal, in longer term, a very limited range of ‘dishes’ for each person, and a reduced sense of communal eating, reducing it to more of a subsistence experience to give the body energy.

One of the main losses is that we consider less the worth of an experience in itself. Time spent in the evening preparing and cooking a meal from fresh ingredients, whilst chatting with friends and lovers, is of great value, as is going to the park for a walk not to anywhere in particular, but not to marketeers. Subsistence will keep us alive, but sustenance is the stuff of life.