DON’T SPEND, DON’T SPEND, DON’T SPEND!

With everyone from Prime Ministers down urging us to spend to save the economy, the second symposium of the International Centre for Anti-Consumption Research could not have come at a better – or worse – time.

One of key speakers at the symposium in Sydney this month was Deakin University’s Dr Stella Minahan, a co-founder of ICAR in 2005.

“I started thinking about my presentation several months ago, before extreme capitalism bit the dust and the world financial markets went into meltdown,” Dr Minahan said.

“I’ve since pondered how relevant a talk on Anti-consumption was in such circumstances and decided it was probably a lot more important than before the great 2008 financial catastrophe.

“Even more than before, marketers need to understand more about their customers, not only why they purchase goods and services, but also why they don’t.

“Further, building sustainable businesses is the catch cry of the new socially responsible organisations and they need to know what is driving people or communities not to consume and what it means for business and society.

“The topic of consumption is often in the public arena particularly as we begin to understand the limits to production – at least on this planet.

“But, as Wendy Harmer, so wisely remarked when she presented the ABC TV program, Stuff: How can we begin to give up our desire for stuff, unless we understand why we have it in the first place?”

According to Dr Minahan, fields of study into Anti-consumption show that it ranges from the mere expression of preference for one brand over another, to the intense distaste and rejection displayed by activists against multi-national companies and the globalisation that they represent.

“In effect, Anti-consumption research is the study of why a person might have simply failed to consume, through to why they might have actively chosen not to consume,” Dr Minahan said.

The main headings under which Anti-consumption comes are:

• Voluntary simplifiers
• Boycotting
• Brand Dislike/Avoidance
• Culture Jamming
• Consumer grudge holding and retaliation
• Risk Aversion
• Authenticity
• Innovation resistance and technophobia
• Dis-satisfaction and exiting.

“Voluntary simplifiers arise from work that is emerging from Scottish researchers including Deidre Shaw, an ICAR founding member,” Dr Minahan said.

“It includes both ends of the spectrum of anti-consumption. There are the baby boomers who have everything they need and are in fact down-sizing, and there are those who have a moral objection to consumption, as in the hippies.

“Boycotting is self-explanatory. Some people boycott top brands because of allegations about the use of child labour. Others boycott stores for stocking fur products.

“Many consumers actively dislike certain brands and will deliberately avoid purchasing them. Some consumers take it one step further and engage in second hand clothes shopping as a way to avoid any brand allegiance.

“Culture jamming has been defined as 'an organized, social activist effort that aims to counter the bombardment of consumption-oriented messages in the mass media'.

“Store design and layout can result in consumer grudge holding and retaliation. The insistence by some stores that customers walk through all the aisles can upset some people and result in grudges. The time taken to shop is lengthened, and more stressful as the purchaser then has to go around the back of the store to collect the goods, then get them home, into the house and assembled.

“In interviews conducted for Why Women Shop (Minahan and Beverland, Wiley, 2005) it was mentioned on more than one occasion that they simply would not go through all of that again.

“Genetically modified foods are one example of risk aversion. Recent research collaborations between academics in South Africa and Western Australia showed that a lot of the problems with the response to GM foods came from lack of knowledge by the consumers and poor communication by government and industry bodies.

“With regard to authenticity, a lot of consumers feel there is little clarity or a genuine guarantee about what is authentic.

“Resistance to technology is not a big issue in Australia as we are a nation of early adopters of technology with extraordinary take up of innovations.

“However there is still some resistance amongst older Australians to use of ATMs and new technologies like iPods.

“And in some areas, in small groups, there is a lot of nostalgia around knitting and sewing circles.

“However, innovation resistance can be a broader community issue. We see it when we have demonstrations and protest movements against pipelines, desalination plants and wind farms.

“So what we need to understand is that Anti-consumption comes in many different forms.

“It can be one individual’s desire not to consume a product right through to a full blown collective movement.

“It is a flip side to why people buy but presents itself in very many different ways to traditional marketing.

“But those people who depend on traditional marketing to sell their goods are going to have to learn to understand it more and more, particularly in the current financial world in which we all find ourselves.

“Simply encouraging people to spend in order to maintain their existing lifestyle may not be enough.

“Manufacturers are going to need to know why people are not buying their products and come up with strategies that respond sympathetically.

“Certainly to build sustainable businesses in this new consumer paradigm we see emerging now, there has to be a much better understanding of and a well thought out response to Anti-consumption movements and behaviours.”

For further information on Dr Stella Minahan and her work on Anti-consumption:
http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/dbs/staff/profiles/minahan.php

> BACK