It seems like months since I have been participating in my usual rounds of marketing world discussions. Probably because it has. My travel schedule has been “nutty” for the past several months, to say the least. To borrow from oh-so-many of my ex-girlfriends from over the years, “it’s not you, it’s me.”
I finally cracked open my reading list of marketing blogs and sites that I have loved for the past few years and came across a post by my friend and fellow rabble-rouser Paul McEnany over at Hee-Haw Marketing on the documentary film by Lauren Greenfield called Kids + Money. In a rare moment of clear thinking and brevity, Paul simply sets up the trailer to the movie and allows the kids from the movie to do all the talking needed to drive home the point. And it’s disturbing.
The movie is about kids growing up in Los Angeles and how their lives are impacted or influenced by money and our current consumer culture. These kids come from varying economic backgrounds, but it is clear that money and consumerism are the strongest factors of influence in their lives. As a parent, their words were chilling to hear. Not because anything they said was wrong, but was such a mirror of all the consumer messaging they have been bombarded with- probably since birth.
One young girl states, “if I could shop all day every day, I would”. Not too shocking, really, but coming out of the mouth of what would appear to be a pre-teen or early teen adolescent, it is still unsettling. I know that these sentiments are not new to this young generation of consumers. This detached from reality view has been prevalent for decades. Kids have been removed from any sense of understanding of money and what it really means to have it or not for as long as we can remember. Movies have pointed out this fact for years and years. My generation had such classic examples as Molly Ringwald as Claire in The Breakfast Club. The spoiled rich kid is a part of the modern movie lexicon.
Where I become disturbed is in the realization that these new kids are inheriting a now broken system of consumerism that has driven this country to the verge of collective bankruptcy. We’ve built the US economy on spending money. We create little and buy tons. Now, I don’t pretend to have an answer to our problems and how to turn things around, though I wish I did (because I’d love a job in the Obama administration). Our economy is in collapse for many reasons, but one of them is this irrational desire to spend money and buy things to be replaced by newer and better things the second they become available. Overnight lines in front of stores to be the first to buy a shiny new iPhone? How on earth is this a rational behavior? Taking out second (or third, or fourth) mortgages on our homes so that we can buy larger vehicles or new HD televisions? Economic stimulus packages are focused on putting money back in the hands of consumers– so they can consume and not so that they can put money away in the bank.
The kids in the film do not represent all kids across the country and I will be the first to admit that Los Angeles breeds a different brand of consumerism, but they represent far more kids than you might think. Right now, our country is holding its breath waiting to see how the Christmas shopping season turns out. Consumerism is what our country now produces- not products.
As a marketer, I have to ask myself if I am partially to blame for this problem. We all must, actually. Do we market for the right reasons or the wrong ones and do we even know what those reasons are? Sincerely, I don’t know the answers to these questions, but watching the trailer for the film sent a shiver down my spine as I watched it. I’m not sure of what to do with this shock and fear, but I know that I am hoping our consumer behavior is changing.
There is definitely need for change. You may have seen this video, I’ve no connection with it, but does highlight how ‘important’ it is to be a good consumer:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ut93YYZu8
Overwhelmingly valid points. Overwhelming because where would one even begin to challenge blind consumerism? What chance do we have against the billions spent on messaging kids to consume and grow-up into good little consumer adults? And, is this really a sign that we are so unhappy with ourselves that we put our faith in shiny new toys to give us instant, fleeting happiness?
Past generations did not have plenty and worked harder to get what they got. Arguably this work-harder-to-get-what-you-got made them more appreciative of things that allowed them to enjoy life more. They were part of the community and iThis-That-and the Other did not exist. Marketing in the past generations focused more on product awareness and brand development and less on driving and creating demand.
Today, the messaging is focused more on creating demand based on want and not need. The messaging is that consumers should demand because they are worth it. That I am special, even if the community does not think so. Even, that I am so special that I don’t need a community. That I deserve more, better, faster, shinier, stronger, taller, fatter, deeper, more extreme. I am the best, therefore iPhone, iDeserve, iFill_in_the_blanks while I sip my Monster drink because I need more energy to drive the bigger, faster car and display to the rest of the rats in the kitchen that I am better, stronger, faster, more deserving, even if I really am not.
As marketers, we have the social duty to remind the public that they are part of the global community, that each of us is special only in the context of the community. Further, that to create demand-at-all-cost in order to drive sales eats away at the social fiber through blind-consumerism until the strength of the community is reduced to frays of individual threads. Strength of the community is lost…until Obama comes along that is!
Wow – I’d like to comment, but I’m still reeling from Kam’s.
Either way, I think that this economic crisis might serve as somewhat of a reset for blind consumerism for consumerism’s sake. But I think even then, it might just be igniting a shift that’s already underway – more caring for others, much more communal than consuming, the next generation of influence peddlers using their power to affect culture in positive ways, etc.
Or maybe I’m just feeling optimistic today.
Well, the market is a double edged sword. On one hand, we have created the greatest generator of wealth in history. Today, even most poor people in the U.S. have televisions, electricity, running water, enough to eat, etc.
The other edge is that of excessive consumerism and the distorted values it creates.
I will tell you this, the good old days never were that good. People lived hard and died young. It’s a nice sentiment, though. Since I am vaccinated against most things, I might even go back for a short visit if given the opportunity. But I would not want to live there…
The key, which we have not found, is developing strong values beyond consumerism while not killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We are so used to the goose that we mock her without realize that which we do. That is as chilling as mall values.
Tim:
Great post! I posted some very similar sentiments the other day (http://adam-1001words.blogspot.com/2008/12/consume-to-live-economy.html).
The problem lies in our values as a society. We are all about the material and we care little about the transcendent. I don’t fault marketers any more than I fault anyone else. Marketers are doing the job that their corporate masters have assigned them.
Wall Street pushes constant growth. But do we really need more growth in this country? What would the “good life” look like? How should we be living? Once we have a handle on this (I know my own thoughts on the matter though I rarely live up to them) we can think about what sort of economy would support such a life.
Interesting huh? An economy in support of our values rather than our values being placed in the servitude of our economy.
Adam, yes, we need more growth. Period.
Unless you want to see soup kitchen lines…
First, I have to apologize for taking so long to come be a part of the excellent discussion and comments here. It was a nutty day… as usual.
Ok, starting from the top…
Craig- what’s scary is how true all the points are. One could almost see some people NOT getting the sarcasm or the point. Chilling.
Kam- my friend, that was all so excellently stated. (For those who don’t know Kam- which I assume you don’t- he is a cycling peer of mine here in San Diego and is a great rider and coach, as well as a member of the cycling industry like me.)
I agree that the point as marketers should be to tap into the way a product fills a need, as much as one can do that. Some products really don’t have a “need” and exist only for the “want” of it. Most people don’t “need” a shiny new bike, but that’s how I pay my bills. The balance here is to find ways to fulfill a legitimate need or at least satisfy the “want” in a harmless way.
Paul- thank you again for your post that got me thinking about all of this. I think you are right- I can’t see how we won’t get some level of resetting. But I worry that the need for consumerism will continue to be a driving force in the global economy. How do we keep the world’s economies afloat without selling our souls for consumerism?
Neil- I agree with you completely. I see the benefits of consumerism all over the place. I spend a lot of time in Taiwan factories and though the life of many of the people there is not one I would want, it is one that they are VERY thankful to have moved up into. I don’t promote the idea of “killing the goose”, but I would like to change the way we look at the messaging.
I have had a number of great conversations about all of this today. One of the things I want to express is that I do not suggest that marketing is a terrible thing, nor is consumerism, per se. What I worry about is the impact of the wrong messaging. Look at these kids- they are associating some pretty heavy ideas with their young worlds. What ever happened to just being a kid? I know that has been a problem for decades- if not centuries- but you get my point I hope. I worry that these kids will become young adults who truly embody those caricatures portrayed in the video Craig shared.
My very dear friend CK and I chatted a bit about this today as well. Changing how we deliver the messages to “buy this”, should be one of the goals. We should also be doing more as a society to reinforce better spending habits that are more sustainable and rational. I know it’s my Piscean way, but we really do have the capability to do some good with our marketing talents.
As a former sales manager of mine used to say, “it is possible to pursue the sale without making the customer feel like you’re reaching in their pocket for their wallet.” I think we can do the same thing as marketers.
Adam- thank you for your comment- it came as I was typing my lengthy one above or I would have mentioned you as well.
I agree that we should look at how we are going to get this country back on sound economic feet, along with the rest of the world.
Though I see Neil’s points, I don’t think that “more growth” is going to be the only answer.
Neil- I agree that we can not rule out consumerism- it would be foolish to think we could. But I don’t agree with the idea of just more growth saving our collective butts. I think we need to look at other ways to stimulate our economy through more public works projects, etc. Granted, getting people to work means they have more money to spend on consumerism… but I do believe a balance is in there somewhere. At least I hope there is.
Just to be clear, I am not a booster for excessive consumerism. In fact, my lifestyle says just the opposite. I have been without a television for years without ill effect and I live very simply.
Some friends staged an intervention fairly recently and made me buy furniture and a video projector (hooks up to my laptop).
My instinct is to live as simply as possible though I do make an exception for cycling and outdoor gear. I tend to go for quality there.
Neil- you’re like a brother I didn’t know I had.
LOL, likewise Tim. Keep up the blogging here.
Growth is needed in order to keep the engine of the economy running, but it need not be excessive. Growth is only one part of the answer.
Another part is all things in moderation.
I do know that more taxes on capital and on high incomes is a bad answer, very anti-growth.
Cap-and-Trade for carbon is another bad idea, the potential for corruption there is almost unlimited.
As for your original question regarding kids and consumerism, “What ever happened to just being a kid?” The Baby Boomers took that away (from “us”) by creating a generation of latch-key kids and by infusing the courts with the concept that “society” or “the Man” is responsible when someone makes poor choices or breaks the law. I believe that that is a major contributor to the “every person for themselves” mind-set that is all over the TV and out in the streets.
It is going to take a lot of work, compromises all around, and the reigning in of many governmental egos to fix this. I must say that I am looking forward to see how 2009 turns out. It does have a lot of promise…
Great post and comments. I only wanted toadd a couple thoughts or points. One is to read Benjamin Barber’s book ‘Consumed’, great on bringing to light the older consumer’s ‘drive’ to be young-like (or hip). Mom’s dressing like their daughters, etc.
The second was a great point where we are as the US society and our economy. This was on NPR/WAMC the other day and and I wish I could give credit – the point was: Decades ago as wages rose so did the purchasing power of the American household, then with the transfer of manufacturing jobs oversees to limit pay costs, the only way to increase purchasing was to make credit more easily available. Now we’ve tapped that out, we’re not manufacturing at the rate we previously were, it should cause a very painful ‘reset’ in the consumer habits – I think that is already visable in the retail clothing sales for the holiday season – the first sign.
Again, great post, love to see more of this discussion.
Thanks!
Bob,
I think what you are going to see more of the GDP devoted to government driven projects, as Tim noted above.
The goal of this, of course, will be to stimulate commerce. You build a bridge, lay some train tracks, build a wet lab for the bio tech industry, etc., and it stimulates growth. The multiplier effect.
One thing that concerns me in this conversation is the idea that growth is sort of like a fish in a tank that grows and eventually outgrows the tank. That is not really how it works. If you say output grew by by 3% or whatever last quarter that does not mean we are 3.5% closer to breaking the tank and having fish tank water douse the couch.
What we are talking about is the output of goods and services for human beings and jobs and prosperity for human beings, etc., not some sort of sea monster.
With regard to values, good memes are as free to spread as bad memes. There is not a lot we can do there unless we sort of re-work the social contract to be a bit less consumption oriented. It would take transformative leadership on the national level and individual leadership at the local level, down to what people teach their kids constitutes a good life.
I think a genuine shift in values is possible away from obsession with consumption and material possessions.
What values would have the pull that these do? How would these other values be balanced with the understandable human desire for some degree of material prosperity?
Neil:
I’m pretty sure we already have soup kitchen lines in the US. And although your emphatic comment on the need for more growth is, well… emphatic, I need a bit more help before I’m convinced.
Perhaps you can help me understand why we need our economy to grow faster than our population.
Also, given your self-described simple lifestyle, I wonder if you’ve thought about what our economy would look like if everyone lived a similarly Spartan lifestyle. Let me save you the suspense: it would be a lot smaller.
BTW, I’m not advocating that everyone go live in a tent and eat sprouts. I am saying that people (and society) ought to think about what life should be lived for. Then they should consume what they need to in order to have that kind of life.
We could live with a much smaller economy. But not if we’re going to insist on consuming the same things. It’s not the soup that’s causing us to need soup kitchens. It’s the steak. And the big houses, fancy cars, never-ending wardrobes…
Again, to be very clear: I live in a glass house when it comes to this issue. But I do think that I and the rest of us need to think about how much stuff we really need. If we did, I am certain we would realize we don’t need nearly as much as we have.
When I spoke of soup kitchens I was speaking of Great Depression style as in 25% unemployment. I realize that even during prosperous times there are people who are homeless and so on…
When I spoke of growth I was referring to the cyclical business cycle.
Does that clarify things?
As for why we need economic growth is that we have found the market system the most reliable and powerful engine of prosperity. Why would you want to even experiment with mass Utopian models? They never work and always do much more harm than good. They end up a dystopia.
If you want to live simply, buy locally, and so on, then by all means do so. I do it and so do many others.
But to make changes on a mass scale would require government authority — something I do not trust to do as good job as the market. Though, yes, we need better regulation. That is clear.
I have chosen to live as simply as possible and basically I do not need a lot of stuff. I walk my errands and try have a very low carbon footprint and impact on this planet.
That said, I never forget how much effort it took to get the food or goods to the store in the first place. It is something that command and control economics could never get right and here we are amongst a cornucopia courtesy of the hard work of many people and invisible hand directing *most* of it.
No human being or agency understands what it takes to make this thing work. I do not know how many loaves of bread will be needed next year any more than the Soviets did. It is wisdom of lots of individual decisions, made freely, that makes it happen.
If you choose to consume less and you vote with your dollars for local producers and you live simply, you will join others who are doing the same thing. We do so freely and without any sort of coersion from the government or anyone else for that matter.
If you have a practical idea other than the market and individual decisions (driven by market forces and free choice) then I would like to hear it.
You can advocate for living simply. I think it is the way to live but I would not presume to impose my way on anyone else.
What I think we lack is humility, thankfulness for what this system and all of us who participate in it have provided — including marketers. The system works.
I sit here writing on a nice computer, with a full stomach, warmed by the grace of central heating.
You can live simply and advocate for it as a better way but, beyond that, we need to let people make their own decisions.
Certainly, government policy can be used to influence people’s decisions and regulate things that hurt others. For example, I am all for regulation of our food system, environmental regulations, incentives for clean energy, research, and the like. These days, clearly, our financial system is broken and needs to be regulated properly.
I think of the government as a referee on the field. You want a good one that makes good calls but he should not tell a player, “hey, you should have gone right not left that last play. Next play, go right. Got it?”
Neil:
Thanks for your clarification. So let me clarify my position: I am not in any way implying that we should walk away from a market-based economy or that the government should try and control us somehow. Actually, I would prefer that we moved in the opposite direction and got the government out of our hair almost entirely.
I am not advocating any rules about what people can consume. I never said anything about law or government policy.
What I’m saying is that there is such a thing as morality. There is such a thing as the “good”. And that we as individuals and we as a marketing community ought to take that into consideration. I am advocating that people think about what they really need and consume accordingly. I am advocating that marketers stop and think about whether it is really right for them to push people to buy ever more stuff.
None of that means I’m asking for the government to do anything. Nor does it mean I’m trying to walk away from capitalism or the market. There’s nothing about market-based economies that requires marketers to constantly push for more growth. It works out that way because investors are pushing for returns like that. I hope they are happy with the results of excessive pushing. But there’s no reason why you can’t have a free market where managers focus on sustainable growth (I mean sustainable in the sense of the word before it was hijacked by environmentalists).
There are always ways to juice the numbers. Push for big shipments at the end of a quarter so you make your numbers and worry about next quarter when it comes. Offer promotions that juice the topline and take consumers out of the market for another purchase cycle and worry about the next cycle later. And so on. But that’s unhealthy management. I would argue that when the economy grows much faster than the population that we as a society are somehow juicing the numbers. We’re stealing from tomorrow. Sure, you can give out crazy mortgages to people who can’t afford them. For a few years you can arrange it so that you don’t see a problem. But the piper must be paid. If not now then tomorrow.
So how much growth do we really need? This is quite a rich country already. Does it need to get richer? How much? When will we have enough? And is it working for us? Are we better off than we were before?
I think it’s fair to ask these questions even if I’m not going to advocate some brave new world government scheme (which I’m not).
Adam, point taken.
I agree there is such a thing as good but it not clear to me that limiting the wealth of a nation is ipsofacto good. I am for maximizing wealth as with wealth comes progress and, at this point in history, that is the only game in town.
Now, does wealth mean I think it is a good idea for people to be driving around in absurdly huge vehicles and being wasteful? No. I definitely think it is wrong both for the pollution it generates and because of the noxious regimes and organizations that oil supports. We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction through consumption of this kind.
Essentially, I am saying wastefulness and recklessness are bad but wealth is good. You perhaps think that is a paradox but it is not.
The more wealth we generate, the more flexibility we have as a society. Let’s consider the matter of sustainability. A country that is “poor” is much more likely to generate energy in the dirtiest ways possible, have the most kids possible, and poison both air and water.
It is when a country and its people become rich (relatively speaking) enough that people delay and have less children, stop tolerating poison air, water, and food, and so on. It is through wealth that it becomes possible to invest in things like wind energy, etc.
While the U.S. is far from perfect, compare our environmental record to poorer countries? Compare the population growth rates of rich versus poor countries? Compare the levels of disease, unclean air and water, unemployment, toxic food, and just about any other measure of human well being.
Wealth even means basic things like enough to eat, a roof over one’s head, and a job for as many people as possible. These are all good things both for the individual who wants to feed a family and for a stable and health society.
Now, insofar as you call for a code of ethics in not pushing wasteful and mindless consumption, I am with you. It is flat-out unethical and dangerous to our national security (recklessly increases our consumption of oil), for marketers to be pushing massive vehicles such as Humvees (despite the cute names it is given) and other gas guzzling monsters.
It is unethical to push sugary, fatty food on children.
It is unethical to push reckless consumption so hard that people go into hock and neglect saving for retirement or a rainy day (e.g., losing a job).
This whole financial mess was both unethical and reckless behavior on so many levels it is beyond the pale.
But is it your presumption here that recklessness and wealth are the same thing? If so, the answer is an emphatic no. Being a wealthy nation is good. Getting even wealthier is better. As a society, the way forward is to maximize wealth in an adult, responsible, and sustainable way.
The way forward is to maximize the size of the middle class. The middle class is the foundation of a stable, wealthy, democratic society.
Marketers have a central role to play in this…
Neil:
Good points all. The answer to your question is that I do not equate recklessness and wealth. But “wealth” needs definition. Is a million dollars wealth? Ten million? A billion? I guess it depends on what neighborhood you live in.
I think another way is to define it relative to your needs. If you need very little and you have more than that, you are wealthy.
I suspect most of us can do a lot more to change what we need than we can do to change what we have.
When I speak of wealth I speak of the wealth of nations (apologies to Adam Smith, RIP).
When people, and countries, rise above a certain level certain changes are inevitable: fewer children, more education per capita, less tolerance for poison water, air, and food.
On the aggregate, we have the capital to develop cleaner energies and even think about sustainability. If you do not know where your next meal you are coming from, you don’t much care if it means cutting down the last tree around. If you are well fed, you want 1,000 year old trees for future generations to marvel at.
As for what defines wealth? That is a question to which I have no answer. It may seem paradoxical but the way out of many of our difficulties is to keep our foot firmly on the throttle and maximize wealth.
The more wealth on earth the better off we are in the long run. That does not mean we let this thing run amok as we have on the environment and the financial referees asleep on the job while the greedy plundered, etc.
Marketers can have a vital role in the responsible maximization of wealth in the world.
As for me, I do not need much. I just hope I can do some good while I am here, though.