Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 11:01AM | 23 Comments tagged Alex Bogusky | in Consumer Power, Sustainability
Alex Bogusky | in Consumer Power, Sustainability The Empowered Consumer
Is "consumer" a dirty word? We are all consumers. And if that means buying any shiny object placed in our path, then it might be a dirty word. But as the late great George Carlin used to say, "There are no dirty words. Only dirty thoughts."
I use the term "consumer" often in my work. And I have to admit that the word can makes me uncomfortable. After all, aren't we citizens, people or human beings first? Defined by the sum of our actions. And don't those extend far beyond what we consume? Yes.
I have searched for a more appropriate word to define human beings - in those moments when we chose what and how to eat, find shelter and clothe ourselves. Suggestions such a "concitizen" and "citizumer" and such have been floated my way as well and I just keep coming back to consumer. The fact is that we are all consumers from birth to death. This may be an uncomfortable fact about our existence but it is unavoidable. In fact, the world record is held by David Blaine and he was only able to do it for 17 minutes. After that, he had to breathe in again. And even that might have been a trick. Even when you eat food from your garden you are consuming and thusly a consumer. Perhaps a more sustainable consumer, but a consumer no less. Colin Beavan, the self titled "No Impact Man" who is attempting to live his life with zero impact is still a consumer. In fact, it is exactly how he consumes that he is working to reduce his impact.
Consuming includes buying but is not exclusive to buying. "Buyer" is only half-synonymous with "consumer" because you can chose not to buy but you cannot chose not to consume. I love to buy things second-hand. It makes me feel good because I get a great price on something already in my community that didn't require all the packaging and shipping waste that comes with something new. But even at the thrift sto re I'm still a consumer.
Consumer is a word and an idea we need to get comfortable with again. Because there is great power in understanding who we are and those moments when we have the potential to have the most impact. Sticking our heads in the sand won't help.
You have ideals and values. So let's assume that you want to help usher in a world where people are treated fairly, where we all clean up after ourselves (industrial pollution included), where toxins are kept out of the home and food, and where you can feel safe. Great. How you consume can be how you make your values come true.
Say you need some new jeans. Quick, which pair most supports your values? There is an answer. But getting to the answer is difficult.
As you consume these jeans you have four choices:
- Consume them new.
- Consume them used.
- Don't consume at all.
(note: the decision not to consume is a consumer decision) - Consume some materials and make them yourself.
Each decision can bring the world you want to see closer or push it further away. I won't go into a breakdown of each, but suffice it to say that it's complicated. The international cotton markets include cotton from farms that employ child labor. So you would have to go with organic cotton to be sure there was no child labor in the making of your jeans. That means most of the big brand names wouldn't be an option and style might become limited. Then the cut and sew process is rife with human and environmental implications.
Screw it. It's too complicated.
The good news is that it's becoming easier to be an empowered consumer. The tools to make VERY informed choices are coming. GoodGuide.com is still in early stages but it is indeed empowering. The tools are only half of the equation, though. The other half is consumer awareness. There's that damn word again.
Consumers are suddenly organizing themselves via the web. Consumers constitute the largest single segment of the economy. Bigger than all of the corporations. Bigger than labor. And as of yet unorganized and unaware and maybe even ashamed to be defined. They have no unions. No economic summits.
You are a consumer. And if it means buying without a thought in your head, then indeed it might be a weak and dirty word. But if it means harnessing the power of the largest segment of the global economy to become a force of good for all humanity, then that starts to sound like a pretty good word to me.
By Alex Bogusky
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 11:01AM | 23 Comments
Reader Comments (23)
...and consumer is just another word for patient, driver, shopper, etc. The passive nature of the word "consumer" implies an almost "empty" process with little or no thought.
Which, of course, is far from the case.
Maybe we can redefine that bland consumer to the emsumer--the empowered consumer!!! (need some help with that new name).
John
Why can't we just say people?
We are targeting people. We want people to buy. We want people to change their behaviour.
Consumer for me implies people are mindless and unintelligent, and if we want to engage people it seems a crazy word to be using. It might be literally what people do, but its context and usage makes it a word I try to avoid.
I think the relationship between service/product providers and buyers are becoming equalized. Enterprises are becoming exposed and a simple person can do such a buzz about them.
We're getting into a fairer relationship of EXCHANGE. I thing this word is getting on the scene. EXCHANGERS. What do you guys thing about it?
Agreed. Being labeled a "consumer" sometimes feels as dirty as when my HS friend joined the Army and started calling me a 'civilian' -- like I was less of a person. Which may be true, but it's dehumanizing, for sure. But, a lot of the time, what we are isn't pretty. So I guess I'll own the title of "consumer". After all, I've earned it.
I think using and redefining "consumer" works well in the context of your point here. However, In the context of advertising, I think it's a horrible word. It treats people like stats and drones, instead of human beings. But I'm sure you know that.
I think the fact is, most concitizens are not that thoughtful to begin with. Especially the groups that lack culture and identity, the chasing after shiny objects and lack of discretion are still unavoidable.
I'd argue that's why advertising exist (especially the bad ones)
So isn't it even more so us advertising people's responsibility to look long and hard into what our clients are offering before we decide to become the face of their brand?
good agency-brand partnership can be very powerful when taking on that active role of making the consumers smarter...
You make valid points, but unfortunately the word consumer has a negative cultural connotation at the moment. It will be more difficult to recruit people in this "revolution" if their first impression of this term is negative.
This reminds me of when Edward Bernays wanted to start a propaganda agency, but the word propaganda had become dirty over the course of the world wars. So he coined the term Public Relations. The rest is history.
Um. Doesn't it all come down to money? Isn't money what fuels products to be produced in the first place? Isn't money what enables people to purchase those products? Isn't money, or lack thereof the reason people purchase products in order to feel like they have some value? Or that point-of-purchase rush?
For the most part, people outside of major cities on the coasts don't care and (most of us) are slaves to the needs of their own brains. It just so happens the consuming fulfills an activity in our brains that stimulates and therefore we consume away to fill the void without any healthy brain debate - we just act for the most part. Even when we want to think we don't.
I think in the beginning it was about what we needed. Food, shelter, clothes - period. Then as that capitalistic expansion came along so did product innovation and marketing. Showing us the world of products that have no real need in our lives but sure made us feel like we were out of the loop if we didn't participate i.e. purchase the latest wave of the new. The hype machine ensues.
Now we wish to pull back the rains on what is is to be a consumer? But what does that mean for all the people that could care less and just wants their Coke, McDonald's, Starbucks, Barnes N' Noble, Target, American Eagle, Victoria's Secret, and designer knock-offs so they can be like the people they see in the videos and magazines? So they can hide from their true emotions and feelings that affect their brains but have no idea how to access their true emotions and feelings so instead they act out.
Woah thats deep but so are we so I don't see a problem with being deep only that it requires challenging thoughts and that requires work and debate.
Holy shit I am rambling. I am probably even off topic. I'm sorry. You can now throw your stones at me for thinking too deep and go back to listening to your iTunes. HA!
To the jeans example I would like to add a 5th option. buy *used* clothes, break them down, and create original fashions. It adds such a nice twist...especially if you do that and then *sell* those clothes to other people... Vintage Fresh is an example of a new start-up doing this.
Wow. That is one circular ramble. I guess the weed is better in Colorado.
I've had this same discussion on many occasions about labeling people in the marketplace. It's difficult to come up with one overarching term because we are all segmented into different purchasing or consumption sectors (i.e. patient, shopper, eater etc) based on how the individual is interacting with the good or service.
I'm inclined towards Fernando's Exchanger because it transcends beyond consumption, which is such a derogatory word and impersonal. Exchanger is more proactive and positive because it encourages not only the purchasing of goods, but also the sharing of ideas.
Good stuff Alex. I also like the play between the words and concepts, "consumer" and "producer" which is so popular these days. We often talk now about everyone being a producer: a producer of content, blogs, ideas, products (change?) (waste?). That our ways of engaging with companies, brands and movements produces as much as it consumes.
Which of course is another way to look at consumption: it always produces something. And, if, as you suggest, we are aware of what we're producing, well then it can shape our consumption.
To your critic who says the ramble is circular, bravo! That's exactly the point. The more we see the closed loop between consuming and producing and what that means, the better off for all. Ha! My own circular ramble.
d
Interesting example with the jeans.
Sadly, knowledge isn't power anymore.
I know grocery store beef if pumped full of antibiotics. I know my jeans were made by someone who isn't old enough to be able to spell or say jeans. But if I can't afford to shop at Whole Foods or buy $300 organic cotton jeans, it doesn't matter what I know and it matters even less what I think.
Only corporations call people consumers. It allows them to dehumanize them. If they have to call them people maybe that will make it a little harder to treat them like statistics
Perhaps all semantics…but the term consumer becomes less of a dirty word if looked at from the sage wit of sir David Ogilvy, "The consumer is not a moron, she's your wife."
Alex, you're right to use the word consumer, not people. You're describing our role on the other side of a very big business equation. While it sounds great to say that the power is shifting to the consumer side, the reality is that as disconnected individuals we lack any real influence on what happens, both commercially and politically.
If you are serious about this revolution, then creating collective action and consciousness is critical. And it's just as critical to address the other side of the business equation: the brands with much more economic muscle than any individual or group of consumers.
Are you really willing to take that on? Are you ready to unionize consumers, because that's in essence what you're talking about. Are you willing to forego consulting fees from the businesses you're taking on?
There's a sad parallel happening on the political side over the last 30 years. While the anger of this year's electorate is real, it won't affect an iota of the power balance. You should read the book: “Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.”
It sounds like you're trying to do the same thing with consumers. Let's hope you're ready to commit big time.
If so, I'm in.
Uhm....Consumer's Union, anyone? http://www.consumersunion.org/
To piggyback on a prior post, if you're ready to really take this on, maybe joining forces with CU and bringing the power of collaboration and serendipity of overlap holds some promise.
Motor on.
I actually think consumers are concerned by what they buy/ consume. I think people consciously decide whether or not to take into account a company's 'social footprint'. Anyway they are increasingly doing so - people are growing their own produce, creating their own energy ...and I think forcing companies down a path to a more sustainable existence. I believe consumers as a group have managed to achieve these things. Companies are the ones lagging behind. Faith Popcorn recently spoke of 'Chief Consciousness Officers' - I think there should be more of them - in every company. Consumers is not a dirty word...we are brought into this world and begin consuming - it's the mess you leave behind you in the process that is unacceptable.
@rob mortimer Good point, GREAT point. However, "consumers" fits perfectly. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy for people buying. turning us into people that either consume on product or another, never giving any other feedback. we may as well be 1 or 0. We accept the role of passive consumers. It also takes the humanity out of duping or positioning that treats people as a Zero. If you put a face to the people in the interaction (exchange is just a one time interaction) you get results that are deeply impactful. Changing the terminology helps, but you cant just replace the abc's of the dialogue, its the dialogue itself that needs to change. Always great stuff here, especially including the people talking beyond the post.
Cheers!
Why has nobody used the word customer? Its a far more respectful moniker than consumer. We talk to our clients and brands about their customers, current and future. Not everyone is a customer. Just some people are customers (that's called targeting). Brands want to talk to customers or to people who will influence their customers. Simple.
btw - If you haven't see it before, check out BrandKarma.com - an index of good/bad brands
Tom
@Wesley I agree about changing the dialogue. But the vast majority of people certainly aren't passive. People have emotional and irrational connections to the things they buy and the communications we produce. Consumer implies they walk across the aisles like zombies, produce a price vs quality graph in their head and buy the same thing they always do.
Look at the New Coke saga back in the 80's. Something as everyday and auto-pilot as the purchase of Coca cola brought out mass hysteria and emotion from people when their choice was changed. Look at how people react to branded clothes andbags. Just because 1million people buy something every week does not mean they don't care about it or have no passion for it.
People are unique, individual, quirky. If we have to group them then let's at least group them using a term that accept their individuality rather than ignores it.
@Tom Customer is better! Brandkarma is a great site by the way, I thoroughly recommend it.
This is interesting:
http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org/
An organization that hopes to help track where your protein comes from.
i agree, on the food chain we are consumers. the problem is that buying "green" or making better choices in consumption still won't get us to what is sustainable for the planet. And I'm wary of using global economy and force of good in the same sentence. But agree with you better to make conscious consumption decisions, than mindless ones.