Shameless Shopportunity and Caring Consumerism

If you live in the states, you’ve likely seen a commercial from the recent campaign launched by Marshals in which the catch phrase is “It pays to be shamelessly shopportunistic.” The general layout of the commercials (I have now seen two of them, but doubtless there are or will be more) is basically: A Manufacturer or Shop owner has an issue with the merchandise quantity, that owner or manufacturer is then forced to figure out what to do with the excess merch that they cannot unload. At this point Marshals comes in and scores a “deal” which they then pass onto the customer. In other words, you are to relish over the fact that you scored a great deal, a deal that likely caused someone along the lines to lose a fair amount of money.

Shameless shopportunism or shamelessly taking advantage of someone? We decry the business that take advantage of consumers, yet applaud heartily when a consumer takes advantage of a business. I realize that this ideal comes from the desire to “stick it to the man,” and in many cases the man needs to be stuck in order to gain attention to an issue. The real issue here comes from our desire for cheaper goods hurting individuals.

This is the same sort of problem we encounter when shopping at Walmart. (Documented here, albeit with a large amount of bias) We have the American desire for a deal causing cutbacks in business that supply Walmart, enabling practices like sweatshops and so forth. I’m not isolating Walmart here, lets remember the Immokolee tomato pickers and the issues that plagued them (poor working conditions, low pay, etc) from Fast Food companies such as McDonalds and Taco Bell trying to cut costs in order to win consumers.

So what, then, does the “Caring Consumer” do? Well… change our buying habits would be the obvious answer, but my honest answer is “I don’t know.” The only way to get attention from these companies is by “voting with our dollars” but the problem is that then hurts the little guys in the company long before it hurts the big guys. Sure, simply buying fair trade only would send a message, but the cost (not fiscal cost, but cost in terms of other peoples livelihoods) would be tremendous.

The “Caring Consumer,” should carefully consider then implications of the purchases they’re making. Questioning the reason behind the purchase, and if this purchase will cause harm to others, would do us all some good. Take some time to think about if we are scoring a deal, or if we are taking advantage of a situation to the detriment of others.

One other note: I realize that I’m able to make this sort of post because of my affluence. I have “purchasing power” beyond that of, say, a minimum wage earner. I realize that not everyone has the ability to change their purchasing behaviors due to financial constraints.

email2friend
  • Prescott
    Oh wait! Are you trying to convince the wife it is unfair so she stops shopping there? Now that I understand and agree with!
  • Prescott
    The distinction used to, in my day, be called, "Suppy and Demand". Your vote was then cast ...for, by buying and ...Against, by not buying.. Profit, or lack of, followed that vote.
    And as to the case at hand, for which you protest. As I understand the situation, they supply a situation wherein the consumer can buy the "job lots, at a savings once the original merchant decides to discontinue the merchandizes from his stock? I do not for the life of me see the problem, or the gouge? How would you equalize this process, short of giving it away? Just trying to understand the complaint.
  • Not sure about the UK retail experience. There is quite a strong "Fair Trade" movement, where products get a logo/seal to put on the packet if they comply with a series of standards designed to make sure that everyone in the chain - and especially the original producer - gets a fair cut of the price. It horrifies the economists, and people debate whether it perpetuates problems or helps to solve them. But undoubtedly it helps keep the issue in front of people in the supermarket: "now, shall I buy fair trade coffee, or the other stuff (unfair coffee?)"
  • Sorry for the lack of response, I've been fighting a cold... too much sleeping going on for my own good.
    Anyways- @ATBS- You could say that everything is a shade of grey... :)
    @Prescott- I'm in no way saying that we don't need profits to survive. Andrew throws out two "reasonable profit" and "exploitation" and I think we need to find out where each of those lies. Not just in a final sales price, but all along the chain, from how much we pay our employees to the quality of product we use.

    @Andrew- I haven't read "No Logo" yet, but I'll look into nabbing it when I can (I fear that if I don't read "Reimagining" I'll be shot by some readers...), I'm under the impression that it's a lot easier to source out where products came from in the UK, I envy you guys for that.
  • hm. grey. yes. It's a messy issue. I was glad to have read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein (though it's a most annoyingly-written book). But it raised more questions than it answers: the Nike logo lets you (sometimes) track their goods back to the good, or not good, places where they were manufactured. But all the unbranded goods in the shop are much harder to trace: were they the fruit of more exploitation, or less?

    I agree that we need to distinguish "reasonable profit" from "exploitation", but those do seem to be relative terms...
  • Prescott
    Nice to have you back in the secular world, but WOW! I did not see this one coming. You don't believe in profit? You have been away too long. The secular world is built on profit. It makes the world go round. Stick around pal you have much to learn.
  • Awwww, way to take a perfectly black and white issue and gray it up. I hope you're happy.
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts