Anti-Consumerist Consumers
Simple Shoes, a for-profit company that sells shoes to consumers, just put out a manifesto against consumerism. In order to sell more shoes.
Are they sincere in their sentiments? Sure. But the duplicity is inescapable. You can't market against consumerism. So why do we as consumers buy in? I think it has to do with Social Object theory (a la Hugh Macleod). People need something physical to rally around; we need atoms to show and share and talk about. We need things to help us remember and to show others what we believe, who we are. And the only ones offering these Social Objects right now are consumer products companies.
Simple Shoes wants people who are sick of consumerism to buy Simple Shoes, and to show them to their friends as proof that they're sick of consumerism, so that their friends will buy Simple Shoes, too. It's not malicious, it's just mixed intentions -- you can't be an anti-consumerist consumer products company.
But anti-consumerism is important and needs a voice. It needs a Social Object for believers to rally around, to identify each other by and amplify the conversations. It needs something they don't have to buy. First thoughts on what this can be? An open source design, a distinctive icon, that can be made from things found in common household, no purchase necessary, easily disseminated through virtually free electronic media. People should be encouraged to make one for themselves, make many for their friends, have parties to make them, give them away freely.
Will be meeting with designers, artists, dreamers about this. Anyone want in?
Are they sincere in their sentiments? Sure. But the duplicity is inescapable. You can't market against consumerism. So why do we as consumers buy in? I think it has to do with Social Object theory (a la Hugh Macleod). People need something physical to rally around; we need atoms to show and share and talk about. We need things to help us remember and to show others what we believe, who we are. And the only ones offering these Social Objects right now are consumer products companies.
Simple Shoes wants people who are sick of consumerism to buy Simple Shoes, and to show them to their friends as proof that they're sick of consumerism, so that their friends will buy Simple Shoes, too. It's not malicious, it's just mixed intentions -- you can't be an anti-consumerist consumer products company.
But anti-consumerism is important and needs a voice. It needs a Social Object for believers to rally around, to identify each other by and amplify the conversations. It needs something they don't have to buy. First thoughts on what this can be? An open source design, a distinctive icon, that can be made from things found in common household, no purchase necessary, easily disseminated through virtually free electronic media. People should be encouraged to make one for themselves, make many for their friends, have parties to make them, give them away freely.
Will be meeting with designers, artists, dreamers about this. Anyone want in?
Labels: Anti-Consumerism, Social Objects
posted by James at 16:15
.jpg)
6 Comments:
A friend of mine pointed something out to me the other day I found interesting.
Consumerism and gluttony is wrong because others don't have stuff. It isn't the ownership of things which is wrong, it is we don't share our resources. Jubilee as taught in the Bible shows this very well.
Sometimes I get caught up trying to get rid of stuff for the sake of simplicity/anti-consumerism but I forget to realize I am not sharing the things (not much) I do own.
Yes, definitely want in on any sort of discussion. I'm currently existing in a weird place... not buying things and speaking against consumerism, but also making a living by selling and/or making things to be sold. Socially/ecologically responsible things, sure, but still things.
I love your thoughts regarding the backwardness of a paradoxical "anti-consumption, but, consume ours" manifesto. I read an incredibly interesting article about satchi and satchi CEO Kevin Roberts and his 'lovemark' ideology. The concept is genius, rather than a 'trademark,' a symbol used to remind the patron that there is a reason to purchase a product; a 'lovemark' resonates deeper. Consumers will purchase, drink the punch, jump off the cliff if there is unquestionable belief in a brand.
It is probable that, Simple Shoes, Tom's Shoes, Better World Books... etc. Is cashing in on/feeding into this genius marketing campaign. Cough, Invisible Children, Acholi Beads... too?
As Mr. Roberts puts it, "inspired loyalty beyond reason."
I agree with both you and Cory's sentiments, lets give something away for free, and share what we have.
Thoughts?
To comment on "It is probable that, Simple Shoes, Tom's Shoes, Better World Books... etc. Is cashing in on/feeding into this genius marketing campaign. Cough, Invisible Children, Acholi Beads... too?"
Some people have stated that this whole "going green" and "helping others" trend in companies is just a fad. I say, bring on the fad! If helping others becomes the popular thing I can only imagine what other creative ideas will start churning up. I don't think a simple purchase is any sort of landmark to consider yourself a philanthropist of any sort, but it is a start.
The problem is people want to help others but with equal desire they want the new Macbook. But what if they buy the Macbook and at the same time buying that Macbook is helping someone? Does that justify the desire? Probably not.
Cory, great thoughts bro. I would submit that consumerism and gluttony are wrong any way, because they take our limited time and commitment away from things of value, and focus them on maintaining stuff for ourselves.
But I totally agree that simplicity or anti-consumerism without generosity and sharing is a weak sort of good.
Em, would love to discuss this with you sometime.
Cameron, I too have been fascinated by the lovemark theory. I think the lovemark is very different from the anti-consumption sentiments that companies are capitalizing on. Harley is a lovemark because it's Harley. Because there's only one Harley and it's big and bad and loud and its saving Harely Davidson on it.
I think that all brands (or all that have any marketing goo between their ears) are striving to be lovemarks. But being a consumer products company that's against consumption is something different.
You're right that orgs like IC and Acholi Beads strike a strange balance. But Acholi Beads, for instance, has never spoken against consumption. I certainly don't believe in thoughtless, rampant consumerism, but I think that consumer products companies can do a lot of good in the world.
Love your thoughts on this. Keep them coming.
Cory, great line in your second comment: "I don't think a simple purchase is any sort of landmark to consider yourself a philanthropist of any sort, but it is a start. " Hear, hear! First let's clean up this mess of rampant consumerism for it's own sake, and sanctify consumption by tying it to the alleviation of social ills. But you're right, that's only the beginning. Let's keep rocking.
Corey, James, others,
Do you see Product (RED) more as a lovemark, or more of a trademark?
Just curious where you see it fitting in?
Post a Comment
<< Home