In my previous Blog on The Right and Might of Choice on 10th Oct 2009, I had left it open for good thought, as to what the relationship there is between Consumerism and Enoughism. Consumerism is a concept that is 100 years old and Enoughism 1 years old. I strongly reject this concept of Enoughism that John Naish is propagating.
But it might be good to define what consumerism really is. It is not negative in its literal definition.
“Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption” (Source: Wikipedia- not that this is authoritative- it just seemed right). The word was first used by Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929).
The latest thinking is called “ENOUGHISM”- coined by John Naish in 2008. Definition,. "there is a point where consumers possess everything they need and buying more, makes their life worse off”
Consumerism is but a statement of fact that people purchase for their happiness, but Enoughism is a value judgement that transgresses into personal right to be unhappy! I believe that it is difficult for someone else to say what is enough or excess for anyone.
An average shopping bill of Rs3000 will contain 60 to 70 articles. Then why do grocery store carries 8000 to 40,000 articles? This is in recognition that every shopper is different and derives varying levels of satisfaction from their shopping baskets. It is in the area of transgression of ones personal freedom, when someone else other than you yourself, begins to dictate the limits of what is “enough”. Every shopper exhibits a habit that is a translation of sum total of their psychographic profile. It is difficult to determine why one person likes pink and another maroon! Is that not what makes this world colourful and fun?
To me John Naish is stepping on the hallowed zone of personal choices, and right to choose and reject, with his exposition of Enoughism. I can’t deny that personally; I do think there is reason to introspect on the boundaries of “how much is enough”. But the operative word is “personally”, and not prescriptively.
I think Enoughism theory lacks balance and pragmatism. I would put it in a different perspective.
There is always the eternal conflict and debate about the “frugality within” with the “expansive living, without (read external)”. I want to balance this out into 4 sequential non-conflicting buckets of premises.
One - Kama (desire). When we are born, we will have desires, to exist and live (eat , cloth, study, create, etc). No living being can be without wants, not even an ascetic.
Two - Artha (money). If we have desires, we must work to satisfy those wants. Only the “burden on earth” consume without producing. It the life of the wasted who consume without producing. Every human has the obligation to produce for the common good as much as, or more than what they consume.
Three - Nyaya (law). Anyone who works must work within the framework of the law. Ethically and lawfully. Harmonious co-existence is only possible everyone follows the law of the land.
Four - Moksha (self-actualisation). When we have worked hard and productively, gained material wealth and riches, we must be prompted to ask “how much is enough?” There is no limit to amassing wealth unless we have a guiding principle that is beyond the realms of materiality. Moksha pushes us to seek the “sanctuary” within us where there is no use of material wealth, where happiness abounds for free. It is simply a state of mind and in another sphere a reality of some kind. Still there are few takers. Those who have been “there” or visit there often talk of the bliss that is free, and that for which there is no limit. It is unconditional and unfettered. It is in the realms of philosophy (not religion).
So these four together provide for a framework of where there is no conflict or contradiction, where the inner can co-exist with the external. Consumerism and Enoughism explained away. But it is ones personal choice to say how much is Enough.
One of the lives that one might live to admire in this context is that of Warren Buffet; his frugal living that co-exists with his running one of the most successful commercial corporations. He donated, to Bill Gates foundation princely sums of money, for charity, but continues to create wealth for his company and shareholders, whilst he lives his frugal life. Something to admire and emulate.
In retailing terms the dilemma that always confronts Category managers is "how much range is enough"? They are torn between giving the widest range to the consumer, and managing productivity on shelf. Many retailers treat “widest” as a strategic differentiator, and that is also because large retailers tend to return unsold goods to the vendors. But for fledgling retailers this may not be an option.
Less is sometimes more. But who is the retailer to decide? They must simply provide what the consumer wants, and eventually to balance shareholder's value, get to the best fit. Category managers always walk this tight rope between "enough" and "more". Having been a category manager for over 10 years, I empathise with them.
But it might be good to define what consumerism really is. It is not negative in its literal definition.
“Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption” (Source: Wikipedia- not that this is authoritative- it just seemed right). The word was first used by Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929).
The latest thinking is called “ENOUGHISM”- coined by John Naish in 2008. Definition,. "there is a point where consumers possess everything they need and buying more, makes their life worse off”
Consumerism is but a statement of fact that people purchase for their happiness, but Enoughism is a value judgement that transgresses into personal right to be unhappy! I believe that it is difficult for someone else to say what is enough or excess for anyone.
An average shopping bill of Rs3000 will contain 60 to 70 articles. Then why do grocery store carries 8000 to 40,000 articles? This is in recognition that every shopper is different and derives varying levels of satisfaction from their shopping baskets. It is in the area of transgression of ones personal freedom, when someone else other than you yourself, begins to dictate the limits of what is “enough”. Every shopper exhibits a habit that is a translation of sum total of their psychographic profile. It is difficult to determine why one person likes pink and another maroon! Is that not what makes this world colourful and fun?
To me John Naish is stepping on the hallowed zone of personal choices, and right to choose and reject, with his exposition of Enoughism. I can’t deny that personally; I do think there is reason to introspect on the boundaries of “how much is enough”. But the operative word is “personally”, and not prescriptively.
I think Enoughism theory lacks balance and pragmatism. I would put it in a different perspective.
There is always the eternal conflict and debate about the “frugality within” with the “expansive living, without (read external)”. I want to balance this out into 4 sequential non-conflicting buckets of premises.
One - Kama (desire). When we are born, we will have desires, to exist and live (eat , cloth, study, create, etc). No living being can be without wants, not even an ascetic.
Two - Artha (money). If we have desires, we must work to satisfy those wants. Only the “burden on earth” consume without producing. It the life of the wasted who consume without producing. Every human has the obligation to produce for the common good as much as, or more than what they consume.
Three - Nyaya (law). Anyone who works must work within the framework of the law. Ethically and lawfully. Harmonious co-existence is only possible everyone follows the law of the land.
Four - Moksha (self-actualisation). When we have worked hard and productively, gained material wealth and riches, we must be prompted to ask “how much is enough?” There is no limit to amassing wealth unless we have a guiding principle that is beyond the realms of materiality. Moksha pushes us to seek the “sanctuary” within us where there is no use of material wealth, where happiness abounds for free. It is simply a state of mind and in another sphere a reality of some kind. Still there are few takers. Those who have been “there” or visit there often talk of the bliss that is free, and that for which there is no limit. It is unconditional and unfettered. It is in the realms of philosophy (not religion).
So these four together provide for a framework of where there is no conflict or contradiction, where the inner can co-exist with the external. Consumerism and Enoughism explained away. But it is ones personal choice to say how much is Enough.
One of the lives that one might live to admire in this context is that of Warren Buffet; his frugal living that co-exists with his running one of the most successful commercial corporations. He donated, to Bill Gates foundation princely sums of money, for charity, but continues to create wealth for his company and shareholders, whilst he lives his frugal life. Something to admire and emulate.
In retailing terms the dilemma that always confronts Category managers is "how much range is enough"? They are torn between giving the widest range to the consumer, and managing productivity on shelf. Many retailers treat “widest” as a strategic differentiator, and that is also because large retailers tend to return unsold goods to the vendors. But for fledgling retailers this may not be an option.
Less is sometimes more. But who is the retailer to decide? They must simply provide what the consumer wants, and eventually to balance shareholder's value, get to the best fit. Category managers always walk this tight rope between "enough" and "more". Having been a category manager for over 10 years, I empathise with them.
The concept of Enoughism is often a byproduct of circumstances around us. A poor guy feels rich getting a bicycle. A middleclass guy feels like an achiever getting a Lexus. A rich guy aims for a Lamborghini. A richer guy wants to travel to space. And one has every right to seek such pursuits, as long as its moral, legal and does not harm somebody else.
ReplyDeleteHumans seek to explore new ideas and benchmarks all the time. Availability & Accessibility of such wider choices to every individual, therefore, is essential. Isn't that what a Retailer (category manager) seeks to provide to their customers at the end of the day ?
Its good to see the spiritual/philosophical touch in your blog these days. Not many people think of aligning work with their soul. Jai Ho.
Siva
Siva. You are right, aspiration is sometimes that keeps progress going. However, it is for individuals to decide when to stop. Yep, the Soul we cant forget ! Retail is part philosophy, it is so tough as a business and so much people orientation that,you got to be philosophical at time.Cheers
ReplyDeleteDear Radha,
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree that none should "prescribe' to another - "how much is enough"; there have been occasions where i have found myself guilty of excessive buying. Most of these occasions related to actions directed by the greed to save. For example, i would pick up 12 bars of Soap when my actual need would only be a couple of bars because a '3 plus 1 free' offer is on. After 3 months i would again pick up another 12 bars of soap not realizing that i have 4 unused bars at home.
Or, i would pick up a 2 pairs of branded leather shoes because a 'buy 1 get 1' offer is on. The result being that my current pair of 'not bad at all shoes' lies unnoticed for months and when i finally awaken to their existence, they would be too dusty for my holy feet. Slowly but surely these pairs end up in the dustbin.
If 'Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption', yes i was happy and considered myself wise while making those buying decisions. But if in hindsight i feel unhappy about my decision, then may be the time for introspection has come, a time for me to think about "how much is enough'.
If i understand correctly, you should be in agreement with me as far as the introspection is done by me and not imposed upon me. However, a few questions clogged my mind when i read that - "Many retailers treat “widest” as a strategic differentiator...."
Can the 'shortest range' but the right range be a differentiator?
Do consumers consider shopping at a grocery store or super market as a 'value adding activity' or a 'maintenance activity'?
If consumers have started thinking so, then would they be interested in a Retailer who is able to impress upon them that yes there are 8000 to 40000 articles being available all around you but i have stocked the 'best' 200 of them, in the most economical packs. My retail chain will save you the trouble of testing and evaluating brands on your own because we have researched each brand in the market and have stocked the 'best of the lot'.
I wonder whether comnsumers would reach a "Tipping Point" (Book written by Malcolm Gladwell) when they start looking to outsource the decision of what is the right toliet cleaner to pick from the numerous ones on the shelf.
Earlier i knew only acid or harpic and so the decision was easy. But today i know more and when i know more but not everything, decision making is a pain. I hate to read through the minute text on price, quantity, ingredients and decide.
Can someone else decide for me as to which is the best for me and what size??
Will a time come when retailers with a shorter but 'right' range acquire more credibility in the minds of the 21st century consumer?
Consider this - Aunt telling her younger sister - go to 'The Boutique', it has fewer choices in dress material compared to Pothys but the ones they have are of great quality and they come at a reasonable price. You will finish your shopping faster and cheaper and with lesser confusion.
Would consumers welcome a retailer who offers lesser but quality choice in the right sizes?
Regards,
Ajay