Nicked this from Rob Walker’s links: The Anti-consumers – Five Groups That Aren’t Buying It. As the title suggests, it’s a list of five distinct groups that really and thoroughly reject consumerism and marketing.
I was half expecting to find on the list some groups of people who say that marketing doesn’t “affect them” and they only buy stuff that they “know” are good brands (you have no idea how often I’ve heard that), but the groups were actually quite serious in their rejection of consumption. If you’re too busy to click on the link, just know this: one of the groups is the Amish, and the other four are equally committed. So yes, I think these five groups are legit in their rejection of consumerism, but let’s come back to the group that I already half identified there: somewhat normal people who swear off marketing and state that it has no impact on them.
For consumers, what they don’t consume is usually an even more powerful identity statement than what they do. So in effect, non-consumers, big brand haters, leftists, hippies, whatever the group may be, usually do have favorite brands and strong emotional ties to them (like anything carrying a Fair Trade logo), but the consumption of these brands is driven by the fact that they are usually the antithesis to some big brands these consumers are actively opposing. Put it this way: they might actively reject McDonald’s’ marketing efforts, yes, but by running away from McDonald’s, the are also running towards brands that stand against everything McDonald’s stands for. Douglas Holt did a wonderful study on anti-consumers like this in his paper “Why do Brands Cause Trouble?” (PDF). I’ve linked to the study before, and it is a must read for any marketer.
This is not a logo… right?
I was talking to my cousin the other day and he recounted a rather interesting example that mirrors this kind of behavior. My cousin is studying philosophy and he had done his bachelor’s thesis on the ethical questions surrounding pharmaceutical companies (to put it short), and he enlightened me on the effects of so-called health advertising. As advertising for pharmaceutical products has boomed and gotten more and more intrusive (especially in the US, think “ask your doctor if you should be taking Tylenol”), so has the amount of people who actively try to reject this kind of pill-based western medicine. These people feel that pharmaceuticals are promoting over-medication and unnatural remedies just for their own profit, and so these people are driven to holistic and eastern medicine, mysticism and consumption of herbal remedies, just to name a few.
But the interesting thing here is that at the same time people are not just trading their previous habits for staying healthy for different ones, they’ve supercharged their personal health care. Where as in the past they might have jogged once a week and eaten a vitamin pill or two every week, now they chug green tea by the gallon, attend yoga classes many times a week and change their diet entirely.
So the message of the pharmaceuticals has sunk hook, line, and sinker: there is something wrong with my health and I need to fix it somehow. It’s just the messenger’s solution they’re not buying. Marketers are nothing if not culture makers, and it’s examples like these that show how far this kind of cultural influence can go.
Recent Comments