WARNING: This is a tongue-in-cheek post. Please enjoy it in the facetious spirit in which is was intended.
After having a couple glasses of wine the other day, I was thinking about general activist and NGO strategies. Yes, sorry. Sometimes I think about business even when I’m relaxing. Here’s the thought that came to mind after two shiraz.
Often activist or NGOs act at cross-purposes. For example:
A general objective of anti-consumerism groups is that they want people to consume less material goods so that reduced consumption has more positive effects on the environment. Less consumption, less production, less pollution, etc. Let’s not talk about the decreased economic development and a reduction in the standard of living. That’s a theme for a more serious post. Let’s just contrast this anti-consumerism objective against another popular advocacy group, consumerists.
Consumerist groups want, among other things, for credit card companies to cease “abusive” practices in terms of eliminating excessive interest rates and hidden fees. On this one, you don’t get a substantial argument from me, but again further discussion on this issue is better saved for a more serious post.
What I want to point out here today is my shiraz inspired flash of genius. Perhaps if these two advocacy movements worked together they could reach mutually satisfactory goals. How?
Let’s say that consumerist groups left the credit card companies alone, leaving those companies to charge whatever the heck they liked, with excessive fees and hidden charges running rampant. What would happen then, if you follow basic economic theory, is that consumers would curtail their usage of credit cards. With less credit card usage, in the United States at least, there would likely be less consumption, giving the anti-consumerism folks a check mark in their victory column. QED.
But what would the consumerist folks get out of this? After all, if the consumerist folks dropped the credit card company haranguing, a major item on their overall activist agenda, then what would they do each day from 9 to 5? Would there suddenly be massive unemployment in the consumerist activist sector of the economy?
I don’t think so.
Such a strategic alliance between anti-consumerism advocates and consumerist advocates would also benefit the overall consumerist agenda. Consumerists aren’t solely about nailing credit card companies. Consumerists also seek to achieve better deals for consumers in all product and service areas. And the magic here, in this joint venture proposed, would be that consumers would get those better deals.
Now, of course those better deals wouldn’t be from the credit card companies. The consumerists are letting the credit card companies run around like lunatics just busted out of the asylum. Remember? No, those better deals for consumers would be offered from other companies where those credit cards would be used. Like retail stores.
Those better deals in stores, and other credit card accepting businesses, would be because of the decreased consumerism. Business would be flatlining. In the hope of covering costs and just breaking even, stores and other credit card accepting companies would offer out-of-this-world deals just to get customers in door.
Is this a crazy strategy?
Well, it’s success, of course, is dependent upon consumers’ propensity-to-spend, their willingness to use cash as a medium of exchange, the fluctuation of the savings rate, the cost of credit, and about a hundred other factors at play at any given moment within the macro-economy.
But it is something to think about.
Now. Someone was recently telling me that shiraz-cabernet is more mellow than shiraz alone.
When you think of the anti-corporate movement usually images of protest and boycott come to mind, with all the rancor, derision, and conflict that come with such things. Think the word “anti-corporate” and our conditioning often leads us into the realm of serious, heavy, and sometimes troubling thoughts.
