Confessions of a cop-out consumer or “prosumer”?

I’ve had to look at my own “consumer behaviour” quite critically and have noticed a slight inconsistency.

I’ll begin by reviewing my consumer profile. I could arguably be considered to fall into a comfortable middle-class financial- and lifestyle bracket. Looking at my history of access to education, my home life growing up and leisure activities, I am certainly what many would regard as privileged.

However, at my present life-stage and considering my financial position and its move towards complete autonomy, I believe I fall into a mass middle class bracket and subsequently, feel (and notice) the effects of a financial recession and the rising costs of living in the most basic areas: electricity, food and fuel. In fact, I grudgingly admit that I feel these things quite significantly. I also have to acknowledge that I have become acutely aware of the radical jump in price over the past two years of the most meaningless items, for example, a tin of tuna, a 4-pack of chicken breasts and a single roll of one-ply toilet paper.

I resigned myself to the fact that a shift from free-range chicken to no-living-conditions-mentioned chicken was necessary. Included in this, I gave up John West in favour of bland-packaged tuna and even accepted the fate of the cheapest one-ply toilet paper. Simultaneously, I despise the fact that I have no control over what I pay for things and very little knowledge as to why I pay what I do.

You’d think that with such conscious shifts (I’ve only mentioned a few) and a fervent distrust of my position as consumer, I’d be the type of person to make every effort to shop where prices are low and quality is lasting. I should be the person who actively shops for personal care and cleaning products at Shoprite (where I noticed they are slightly cheaper), but who buys her fresh produce from Pick n Pay because their longevity is more reliable, and hence more valuable than the few Rand discount Fruit & Veg City offers me. Essentially, I should be a discerning and cautious shopper with the objective of surviving, if not beating, The System.

I am (sadly) not.

While I have given up brand names in favour of cheaper, not-so-pretty-looking products, and while I do dig into the back of the fridge to ensure I find the milk with the most distant sell-by date, my efforts at being Miss-Conscientious-Consumer have been completely insulted by the fact that I shop at the Spar down the road where prices are noticeably inflated. I shop purely for convenience at the expense of price.

You may be thinking that I’m clearly exaggerating my financial situation and that in fact, I am a born-and-bred privileged consumer, who fakes fitting in with the masses, but who can actually afford to shop for convenience over value. The reality is that I cannot.

I shop for convenience because I cannot stand the Monday evening queues in Pick n Pay or their perpetual lack of items I tend to want or need. I loathe the fact that they have too few baskets for Monday night month-end shoppers. I despise the shop layout and that silly perpendicular section that creates traffic jams, especially with my superfluous trolley. I do not like walking down the stairs to my car with four full and heavy bags and I get quite upset when a week later, I realise that a person living alone should never have bought a month’s worth of fresh produce in the first place.

Alternatively, driving to Checkers or Shoprite is a hassle and parking is unpleasant, and shopping on a quiet Sunday is like sending me to Siberia to find inspiration and meaning in life.

Instead, while I am still brand- and quantity-conscious within my local Spar, I disregard their overall pricing strategy in favour of short queues, friendly staff, every random item I might need for my spontaneous cooking occasions or awkward cravings, a mostly guaranteed parking space, and the only outlet that seems to sell electricity (without complications or extra charges) for my block of flats.

I admit that convenience is expensive (and perceived to be a privilege), but the overall experience of convenience when I work and study and value the time in between, is priceless. Convenience may be considered counter-recession, but I do believe that it still holds on to the essence of “prosumerism”- i.e. the things that count to me.

When brands go bad

Recently MTN held a competition for customers to celebrate their 15th birthday. It seems like a perfect opportunity for a brand to profile itself and reward loyal customers, especially in light of the ridiculously high rates South African consumers are expected to pay for mobile services in relation to the rest of the world.

MTN arguably botched this one up. Customers stood the chance to win a homeloan to the value of R1 million, 14 Toyota Fortuners and plenty other prizes that MTN would give away daily.

In order to win, participants had to answer general knowledge questions. The more questions that were answered correctly, the more points were accumulated, and the more points were promised for answering the next question correctly. Each SMS cost R7.50.

Firstly, to expect a loyal and regularly paying MTN customer to fork out R7,50 for a competition SMS and then encourage them to continue accumulating points through subsequent SMS’s, is not in the spirit of a celebration and certainly no reward for a majority of South Africa’s cell phone users. One could be forgiven for thinking that this entry mechanism had the sole of objective of funding the competition in the first place.

Secondly, according to an IOL news article, The Star newspaper had established that winners seemed to know each other, were friends on Facebook, colleagues or spouses. Rumours surfaced that there was a website where entrants could check their accumulated points and knew exactly how many SMS’s they needed to send in to accumulate enough points to win.

MTN launched an inquiry into this matter and to top this off, independent complaints about the competition resulted in the National Lottery Board investigating and finding the competition illegal.

The competition was closed a month ahead of schedule on the 5th July. This is what MTN had to say: “Whereas this competition generated a lot of excitement and participation, it unfortunately reached a stage where the debate surrounding it was not consistent with the MTN Values and detracted from the intended spirit of the game for our customers.”

Interesting. It is reassuring to know that illegality is not a value of MTN’s, although I still find it immensely disturbing that such a massive brand considers R7,50 for competition SMSs consistent with their values and proceeded with a mechanism for a competition that was so obviously not customer-centric.

I am dying to know exactly what their values are.

MTN, you have disappointed me immensely. This makes it tempting to change to another brand. Realistically, I won’t because of the admin and time associated with a sim swap and change in service provider, and because I do not believe any one network in this country will truly liberate me from paying about 5 times the price of my Indian counterparts (who similarly live in a developing nation).

Sources: IOL News, Bizcommunity.com and News24.com

Acknowledging a legendary brand

In light of Michael Jackson’s death and the overwhelming reaction by people across the globe to this, I believe it would be appropriate to comment on Brand Michael Jackson, specifically looking at what he represented to his “customers” or fans.

Words that epitomise media and public responses to Michael Jackson after his death are: iconic, legendary, extraordinary, talented, transcending, inspiring…the list goes on. On the other hand, there are a number of cynics who will always harp on Jackson’s awkwardness, strange behaviour, controversy and insecurity, but in light of the epic reaction to his sudden death, it seems that brand Michael Jackson was a lot stronger and far less tainted by negative associations than many might have imagined.

If we consider a brand to encompass the accumulation of experiences, encounters and interactions between a product/service and a consumer, Michael Jackson certainly succeeded in creating a plethora of experiences that infiltrated not only peoples’ personal lives, but popular culture as a whole.

Arguably, Michael Jackson’s “product” or “service” was his music and entertainment. (Perhaps it would be more dignified to refer to this as his brand’s reason.) Not only did he completely differentiate his music from other performers at the time, he wholly broke the mould of music and introduced this to people in an exciting, individual and captivating way- a continuous offering of albums, flawless performances, a unique sense of style and his signature moonwalk.

What really solidified the Michael Jackson brand in the minds and souls of consumers was the actual music and individual songs. Not only does well-liked and often revolutionary music have an inclination to live an extended life, but particular songs cling to people’s specific experiences and distinct moments in their lives. I have yet to meet someone who does not recall a certain moment when hearing a certain song or vice versa. Music has the ability to cement moments and feelings into our consciousness and Michael Jackson’s songs did just this.

Lastly, the actual lyrics of his music appealed to a collective consciousness for social change and cohesion. His music coincided with a time when the world needed to review the structures and norms it had established and subsequently realised that there may be undesirable consequences to some of these.

Brand Michael Jackson used music to facilitate hope, change and simultaneously ignite excitement in the prospect of the future. The result is a legacy of encouragement and likely a brand whose underlying values have just been reborn, allowing its iconic nature and positive associations to triumph over the negative.