Yes, I’ve noticed that the question of demand is often dismissed by “critical” scholars (because we’re duped). Even today I can’t have a rational discussion about audience demand with most of my media studies colleagues. Too many of them insist that audiences would prefer educational media if they hadn’t been brainwashed by all that commercial media. I study the history of advertising and have had to ignore most scholarship on “consumer culture” because it is almost always a jeremiad about “capitalism” and rarely an actual analysis of what happened and why. My theory is that those critical scholars have never actually suffered want and so are dismissive of consumer desire, generally.
I question the premise. I don't think we *do* buy anything we don't need. Sure, you may click the wrong button on Amazon, or grab the box next to the one you really wanted in the grocery store by mistake. But other than mistakes, everything we buy is based on a need, as defined in Maslow's hierarchy.
I need clothes to meet various physical needs: to protect my body, to keep it warm, dry, clean, etc. I need a suit and tie for social acceptance. I need designer / expensive / or at least a tailored suit to signal wealth, status, self-esteem. Or I may need unusual clothes to express my identity.
Repeat for food, cars, electronics, leisure-time activities, etc. etc. etc. Everything we buy fills some felt need. If it didn't, we'd buy something else that did.
It's astounding, if true, that free-market economists don't pay any attention to why people buy things. Consumption patterns are fascinating--why certain colors and styles go in and out of fashion; why the same people who swore five years ago that Birkenstocks were the only truly comfortable shoes now swear that sneakers are the only truly comfortable shoes; why knocking down the interior walls in your home to create an "open-plan" living space was all the rage...until suddenly it wasn't. As Aristotle said, man is by nature a social animal, and there are obvious social factors at play. That's why I don't think status competition is such a bad explanation. Tom Wolfe devoted his entire career to writing about status jostling, especially among people who considered themselves above such attention to material details. There are also group dynamics and group hierarchies; the influence of "influencers," whether the alpha girls in high school or the people with the the 800,000 Instagram followers. Shopping itself is a social activity. And then there's the inescapable observation that while men buy lots of stuff, women buy lots and lots and lots of stuff. This is all mesmerizing! Is it really true that no one except for doctrinaire Marxist dullards are actually studying it?
So, several explanations have been identified, but I may have missed some:
1. Fetish
a. the fetish objects of primitive spirit magic (as opposed to stage magic), where similarity equals identity: shrunken heads, for example. The usual sort of example for shopping is that the buyer sees Kim Kardashian promoting S, so buying S will make me as sexy or successful as Kim Kardashian. I don't think any rational adult actually believes this. The effect, instead, I think is an associative halo effect: Kim is associated with good things (things I want), so those things evoke good feelings; good feelings about a product promote a sale.
b. the fetish of an exaggerated sensual, often erotic, response to a particular stimulus: e.g., a shoe fetish.
2. Power relations:
a. either dominance-submission (Dear Wife! See, I have bought you this blue sari, which goes so well with your green one, and they both complement my navy blue dress suit. You must wear one or the other when we are in public); or
b. personal autonomy (I like that vermilion; the color thrills me, so I will bloody-well buy it. So there!)
3. Status seeking or status maintenance: (People will be impressed with me when I drive my new Lexus through the neighborhood; people will look down on me if I don't hire a landscape company to tend my yard.)
4. Fraud: buyers are lied to about the attributes of a product or about the effects of a product, either to
a. maintain power or status relations, encouraging possible rivals to waste their time and money; or
b. to profit from gullibles.
The product assertions might not be legally actionable as fraud or misrepresentation, but they are said to be on the fraud spectrum; for example, "Our X is the best!" or saying that a device works better with original manufacturer parts (at a premium price) even when independent testing might show that another manufacturer's part is of identical or better quality at a lower price.
5. Pleasure. I buy whole milk rather than skim milk, or oat/almond/soy milk because I prefer the taste of cold, fresh whole milk to those other products. Those other milks may be better for me, and when they are on sale they may even be cheaper; so I don't need to buy whole milk. In The Road to Wigan Pier, I think it was, George Orwell spent some time defending the habit of poor people putting sugar in their tea, even though some of his socialist compatriots condemned the practice as wasteful and unhealthy: what other simple pleasure was as convenient?
6. Advertising; or if you prefer, communal bonding display. Not every one will recognize the significance of carrying a Birkin bag or wearing Wolverine roper boots, but the right people, the ones you want to associate with or repulse, will respond.
7. Community. I bought a Tervis Tumbler with a Miami Dolphins logo. No one who does not already know I am a long-suffering Miami Dolphins fan sees me drink from that vessel. But when I sip disgustedly after some fresh Dolphins blunder, I can believe that many others are doing likewise.
8. Self-identity. If I consider myself an oenophile but I only buy Charles Shaw or Turning Leaf, I might more honestly consider myself a liquor liker than a wine lover. A true devotee will at least occasionally splurge, whatever that may mean in the context of one's budget.
These explanations are not mutually exclusive, and I have not exhausted the possible explanations of why I buy things I don't need. Maybe I have missed some bigger ones; maybe I have misunderstood the entire project. But I hope that if I have gone astray someone will point me in the right direction. Perhaps there is something on sale?
started to ask myself this question every time I contemplate buying something: why do I truly, really want to buy that? what I found already: overtime, this practice trains my 'agency-muscle' and I feel freer, more aware of my own desires / wants; which ultimately helps me be more at peace with myself.
Also, in my comment above, I forgot two that became obvious to me later:
9. Convenience. It is nice to have several pairs of the same kind of scissors around the house.
10. Aesthetics. I don’t need three vases on the windowsill, but one is distracting and two just doesn’t look right.
Yes, I’ve noticed that the question of demand is often dismissed by “critical” scholars (because we’re duped). Even today I can’t have a rational discussion about audience demand with most of my media studies colleagues. Too many of them insist that audiences would prefer educational media if they hadn’t been brainwashed by all that commercial media. I study the history of advertising and have had to ignore most scholarship on “consumer culture” because it is almost always a jeremiad about “capitalism” and rarely an actual analysis of what happened and why. My theory is that those critical scholars have never actually suffered want and so are dismissive of consumer desire, generally.
I question the premise. I don't think we *do* buy anything we don't need. Sure, you may click the wrong button on Amazon, or grab the box next to the one you really wanted in the grocery store by mistake. But other than mistakes, everything we buy is based on a need, as defined in Maslow's hierarchy.
I need clothes to meet various physical needs: to protect my body, to keep it warm, dry, clean, etc. I need a suit and tie for social acceptance. I need designer / expensive / or at least a tailored suit to signal wealth, status, self-esteem. Or I may need unusual clothes to express my identity.
Repeat for food, cars, electronics, leisure-time activities, etc. etc. etc. Everything we buy fills some felt need. If it didn't, we'd buy something else that did.
It's astounding, if true, that free-market economists don't pay any attention to why people buy things. Consumption patterns are fascinating--why certain colors and styles go in and out of fashion; why the same people who swore five years ago that Birkenstocks were the only truly comfortable shoes now swear that sneakers are the only truly comfortable shoes; why knocking down the interior walls in your home to create an "open-plan" living space was all the rage...until suddenly it wasn't. As Aristotle said, man is by nature a social animal, and there are obvious social factors at play. That's why I don't think status competition is such a bad explanation. Tom Wolfe devoted his entire career to writing about status jostling, especially among people who considered themselves above such attention to material details. There are also group dynamics and group hierarchies; the influence of "influencers," whether the alpha girls in high school or the people with the the 800,000 Instagram followers. Shopping itself is a social activity. And then there's the inescapable observation that while men buy lots of stuff, women buy lots and lots and lots of stuff. This is all mesmerizing! Is it really true that no one except for doctrinaire Marxist dullards are actually studying it?
So, several explanations have been identified, but I may have missed some:
1. Fetish
a. the fetish objects of primitive spirit magic (as opposed to stage magic), where similarity equals identity: shrunken heads, for example. The usual sort of example for shopping is that the buyer sees Kim Kardashian promoting S, so buying S will make me as sexy or successful as Kim Kardashian. I don't think any rational adult actually believes this. The effect, instead, I think is an associative halo effect: Kim is associated with good things (things I want), so those things evoke good feelings; good feelings about a product promote a sale.
b. the fetish of an exaggerated sensual, often erotic, response to a particular stimulus: e.g., a shoe fetish.
2. Power relations:
a. either dominance-submission (Dear Wife! See, I have bought you this blue sari, which goes so well with your green one, and they both complement my navy blue dress suit. You must wear one or the other when we are in public); or
b. personal autonomy (I like that vermilion; the color thrills me, so I will bloody-well buy it. So there!)
3. Status seeking or status maintenance: (People will be impressed with me when I drive my new Lexus through the neighborhood; people will look down on me if I don't hire a landscape company to tend my yard.)
4. Fraud: buyers are lied to about the attributes of a product or about the effects of a product, either to
a. maintain power or status relations, encouraging possible rivals to waste their time and money; or
b. to profit from gullibles.
The product assertions might not be legally actionable as fraud or misrepresentation, but they are said to be on the fraud spectrum; for example, "Our X is the best!" or saying that a device works better with original manufacturer parts (at a premium price) even when independent testing might show that another manufacturer's part is of identical or better quality at a lower price.
5. Pleasure. I buy whole milk rather than skim milk, or oat/almond/soy milk because I prefer the taste of cold, fresh whole milk to those other products. Those other milks may be better for me, and when they are on sale they may even be cheaper; so I don't need to buy whole milk. In The Road to Wigan Pier, I think it was, George Orwell spent some time defending the habit of poor people putting sugar in their tea, even though some of his socialist compatriots condemned the practice as wasteful and unhealthy: what other simple pleasure was as convenient?
6. Advertising; or if you prefer, communal bonding display. Not every one will recognize the significance of carrying a Birkin bag or wearing Wolverine roper boots, but the right people, the ones you want to associate with or repulse, will respond.
7. Community. I bought a Tervis Tumbler with a Miami Dolphins logo. No one who does not already know I am a long-suffering Miami Dolphins fan sees me drink from that vessel. But when I sip disgustedly after some fresh Dolphins blunder, I can believe that many others are doing likewise.
8. Self-identity. If I consider myself an oenophile but I only buy Charles Shaw or Turning Leaf, I might more honestly consider myself a liquor liker than a wine lover. A true devotee will at least occasionally splurge, whatever that may mean in the context of one's budget.
These explanations are not mutually exclusive, and I have not exhausted the possible explanations of why I buy things I don't need. Maybe I have missed some bigger ones; maybe I have misunderstood the entire project. But I hope that if I have gone astray someone will point me in the right direction. Perhaps there is something on sale?
started to ask myself this question every time I contemplate buying something: why do I truly, really want to buy that? what I found already: overtime, this practice trains my 'agency-muscle' and I feel freer, more aware of my own desires / wants; which ultimately helps me be more at peace with myself.