Shaun Groves
A saw a few minutes of news last night while dining at the mall to celebrate my niece’s half birthday. (God forbid a television not be on at all times in all places.) A smart looking guy in a suit used the words “economic crisis” more times a minute than a thirteen year-old says “like.”
You’ve been hearing about it too, I’m sure. How couldn’t you? After all, you’re a consumer and according to the smart guy in the suit your confidence is at an all-time low. To prove it he said Home Depot’s revenues dropped by a third this quarter. And then there’s the auto industry crisis, mortgage crisis, airline crisis and on and on. Everyday the economic crisis, we’re told, gives Americans one more wallop to the wallet. We, we’re told, are having some major financial problems.
But iPhones are selling like, um, iPhones. And so are Apple computers – now accounting for 25% of all money spent on computers in the U.S. And they aren’t cheap. I know. I’m using one right now.
And most of us – wouldn’t you say? – are still buying soft drinks, snack food, texting plans, cable, vitamin water, and lots of other stuff that’s hardly essential too. We’re not exactly living like people in the midst of an “economic crisis.”
And this got me thinking way too deeply to reconcile this contradiction. And I thought about this theory of change I heard once. The theory goes that people are most likely to change their behavior if the consequences of doing so (or not doing so) are believed to be eminent. I won’t stop smoking unless I’m convinced I’ll die very soon if I don’t. I’ll stay late for work if I’m certain I’ll get the promotion I’m up for if I do. Maybe, I thought, if we really believed we weren’t going to pay the bills this month, and that would mean losing our house, we’d back away from the Oreos and iPhones. So, we’re just not convinced the consequences of our spending are eminent, I thought.
And that was way too deep. Seth Godin, the marketer, has me thinking the more probable reason for our continued spending during this “economic crisis” is much simpler, but no less profound. He writes:
Marketers taught well-fed consumers to want to eat more than we needed, and consumers responded by spending more and getting fat in the process.
Marketers taught us to amplify our wants, since needs aren’t a particularly profitable niche for them. Isn’t it interesting that we don’t even have a word for these marketing-induced non-needs? No word for sold-hungry or sold-lonely…
…Think you could live without the $1800 a year you spend on cell phone service and $1200 a year you spend on cable TV? Of course you can. You did ten years ago. But now, that high-speed, always-on connection to the rest of the world is so associated with your basic need of connection that you can’t easily divorce the two.
Ouch. I like my theory better. But that doesn’t make Seth wrong. Read his whole post. It’s well worth a minute of your life. And it might help you stay away from the Oreos and get those bills paid this month.
Texas in Africa says:
I heard a really fascinating paper at an academic conference this weekend on a similar topic. Turns out people (at least men in Lesotho, which is where the subjects of the paper were studied) don’t really change their behavior with regards to spreading and preventing HIV/AIDS, even when they know the risks. The human ability to ignore the facts and do more and more and more of what we think we want to do – regardless of the cost – is remarkable.
Mark Geil says:
Like Seth, I was having lunch with a college student, except it was when I was in college. We were discussing a popular topic on college campuses: alcohol.
I don’t drink now and I didn’t drink then, so I was asking my friend about “social” drinking, which I interpret as drinking alcohol with no intention of becoming intoxicated. I am a miser now and was even more of one then, so I asked my friend why someone would pay so much more for an alcoholic beverage if the intent was not to attain the effects of alcohol. Her reply: “We like the taste.”
Nope. Not buying it. You can’t convince me that a taste benefit outweighs the hefty additional cost. My theory? It’s marketing. And the phenomenon that marketing can beget, good old fashioned peer pressure.
We relegate peer pressure to junior high, but it’s as alive on college campuses and among iPhone purchasers as it is there.
Jeff Honnold says:
Marketing Pressure\Peer Pressure\Keeping Up Pressure is existant in every aspect of our life, not just college. Even when we grow up and get married some of us choose to do this crazy thing called “Bearing Children”. What the really should call it is “Bearing Consumers”.
I’ve got three beautiful children and we try to teach them important things – life things – God things. Unfortunately they watch TV and are told how they HAVE to have toy X or Y. And even if they don’t see something on TV they go to the neighbors and see this amazing new gadget and think that because Johnny has a cell phone that they need a cell phone. Of course, Johnny is 11…and doesn’t drive, or go out without his parents, or even walk to school…yet he’s had three new cell phones in a year!
As parents, my wife and I are trying to focus on our “needs” more than our “wants” with both ourselves and our extended family – but I can almost promise you that come December 25th there will be a sickening amount of stuff that’s been unwrapped and by December 27th half of it will be touched only once or twice ever again.
This year with our own kids we are focusing on our sponsored children and are encouraging all three of our kids to take the time to read the blogs from the latest Blogger trip (Thank you Shaun for what you are doing with that Ministry) and think about the lives of our “siblings that don’t live far away”. We are making letter writing a priorty and sending hand-drawn pictures and photographs as well as doing what we can to help others in need in our own community. There is no better thing than to see my kid’s faces light up with the joy that comes from serving others.
Rebecca says:
Really? $1800 and $1200 a year? Its nice to know how much I’m saving.
One of the most appalling conversations I have ever heard between two people was how they were going to skip sharing a meal together because they’d rather be home in time to watch a TV show.
Whatever happened to relationships?
RevJeff says:
“And most of us – wouldn’t you say? – are still buying soft drinks, snack food, texting plans, cable, vitamin water, and lots of other stuff that’s hardly essential too. We’re not exactly living like people in the midst of an “economic crisis.” “
Yes, I would say.
And for the record, I’m in favor of nationalizing (Dish/Direct TV) rather than healthcare…. judging by the “low rent” priorities in our community, more people want it.