January 18, 2013

• Random Price Tags

  Nowadays, when I go to a grocery store looking for a box of eggs, I have a lot of choices.  Not just different brands, but also types within brands.  You’ll see terms like cage eggs, organic, free-range… whatever.  There’s a whole bunch of things on those labels that have been researched and calculated to catch your attention and make you pick up that particular box of eggs.

  But what does it mean when you pick up a box of “organic” eggs?  Is this just a label that anyone can use, and try to fool the “casual conscientious”?

  The truth is, the usage of terms in advertising varies from country to country, and even state/province to province.  The legal meaning of what you’re reading on a label doesn’t necessarily mean what you would take it to mean when you’re talking to a friend.

  There’s a concept in economics called “demand-side substitutability” which is used to define product markets and services.  I’m not an economics major or anything, but basically, it’s a method of determining what products and services are out there.  The less demand-side substitutability there is for a product, the more ‘unique’ it is.

  And uniqueness is important.  From my experience, part of the reason why we buy things, and not just a certain thing, but a particular customisation of things, is because customisation gives us a sense of identity.  I wear a certain style of shoes and not others, because despite the fact that both types might help me walk or run, the extras make me feel psychologically comfortable with the representation I’m making to the world.

  Corporations spend a shitload of money researching what makes us comfortable.  More specifically, they spend a shitload of money doing research on how they can sell us things, and part of what makes an item sell better is how unique it is– because identity is an expensive commodity, above and beyond the functional of the item itself.

  And what if we put informed choice into the equation– then, demand-side substitutability becomes us demanding particular products for particular functional reasons, rather than just cosmetic ones.

  For example– when we buy a box of “organic” eggs, we are demanding organic eggs– but because of the way labelling laws work, it might be possible that the concepts of organic that we subscribe to have nothing to do with the company’s ability to tag that word on the box, and charge an extra 30% premium on the price.

  Basically, should we be paying 30% extra, if it turns out that the product is actually the same as a cheaper substitute?

   

  SO, this brings us to the concept of “supply-side substitutability.”  One of the ways that you can basically use to determine if a product is the same as another is to see, on the supply side, if it’s substitutable.

  With the example of eggs,

  does the farmer at company ABC have to use different equipment, different expertise, different methods, etc to produce a box of organic eggs, versus regular eggs?  If he does, then that’s an indicator that the product itself is likely different ,and warrants being considered a different thing by consumer.

  That said, there are insane amounts of products out there that are NOT different, and which we are paying for uniqueness of substance, and they’re NOT providing unique functions.  

  The reason we get caught up in them is because of the carefully chosen wording of labelling.

  For example– I have pretty bad eczema at times.  For those of you who have ever had a skin condition, you know that it’s pretty tricky to find some sort of moisturizer that works for you.  I’ve been through almost every on the shelf product in Canada, and almost half of the products in Australia.

  Everytime I pick up a bottle, the labels says: dermatologically tested.  Recommended by dermatologists.

  Now, really, what does that mean?  Is that supposed to convince you to buy the item?

  All it means is that a dermatologist might have tried that lotion.  Whether or not he aprooved it?  That’s a different story.

  And as to recommended by dermatologists?  Just what exactly was recommended– the lotion in the bottle in your hands, or some general class or concept of lotion and skin hydration in general?  Because any dermatologist would recommend that you use some sort of lotion on dry skin.

  Despite all the recommendations, and even labels that directly state that this bottle is specifically engineered for eczema, what that label tells you is full of cheap words that don’t matter.  I could say that I built you a dining room table– but that claim could legally mean that I just put a piece of sheet metal on a pile of bricks.

  Similarly, most over the counter eczema moisturising creams and lotions for some retarded reason contain some form or another of alcohol as a preservative.  When you’ve got dry, irritated skin, let me tell you what you’ve already guessed: alcohol doesn’t make your skin any happier.

  Every day, people sit in rooms and discuss clever ways to sell us things without having to do much extra work.  They sell us things because, despite everything, we’re too trusting–  we associate nice packaging with quality and dependability, when really, packaging is really just packaging.

   

  So who sets the standards?

  Well, while it is difficult to get the government to do anything, especially since everyone’s so pro-capitalism, you have to keep in mind that you can’t shirk the responsibility of understanding the substance of things yourself.  The amount of connection you have with the world around you has to do with you going deeper than the superficial, and finding a place to set in roots.  That means maybe you should take a moment to check the ingredients in a food or drug.  Maybe you want to understand what a product can do before you buy it.

  And maybe you want to start differentiating between how a product looks and what it can do for you.

  In a capitalist market, the power is supposed to be in the consumer.  Competition is supposed to give us the better products.  I don’t believe this is true by default– I think the better product is the one that’s suited to the job.  If that’s the case, what does it mean if we’re buying things we don’t need or understand?  How is that an improvement?

  Every dollar you spend is like a ballot– you are meant to vote for what you believe in with every purchase.

   

  What about people who say that it’s all too complicated– with all this talk of genetically modified everything, how am I supposed to know what I want to eat?

   

  Well okay– let’s make it simpler then.  If you line up for 10 hours to get that new iPhone, are you going to experience the life altering “change of everything” (again, nonetheless)?  Are your friends really going to think you’re that much cooler now that you’ve got an old iPhone as a paperweight?  Does this matter?

   

  I chose an iPhone because its an easy target, but it easily demonstrates a point– we have more productivity tools than we actually have need for productivity.  We’re substituting a bit of elbowgrease for convenience on levels where you’re paying a hefty premium, and really, that premium is for technological capacity that you don’t even use.

   

  Potential is great, but it’s like dreams– you can stock it up all you want.  It’s all irrelevant if you don’t take the time, develop the discipline, and learn to work with substance, rather than images.

  • 9:18 pm
  • 4 Comments