Change is Still the Same

It’s been my position that change is not as rapid or dramatic as many would like us to believe.  While it would be foolish to deny that change is occurring and that more changes are coming in future, it’s equally foolish to constantly speak of rapid and dramatic change that will sweep the globe.  Changes tends to be small, and even when it is revolutionary (the emergence of the Internet and mobile), it takes quite a bit of time to occur. 

While the last twenty years or so have been transformative, all of this hubbub has been based on three basic premises that have not changed – and all the plausible prophesies of change for the foreseeable future are still based on the same three basic forces: technology, globalization, and changing consumer behaviors.

Technology

Technology is by far the greatest force of enthusiasm about change, and a force of actual change in far fewer situations than the enthusiastic will let on.  Computer technology has driven change for the past fifty years – between databases and networks, the internet, and mobile.   The devices we use to communicate with one another have expanded to provide more access to more people in more situations.  

But at heart, the functions of technology are still the same – connecting people to one another and providing rapid access to information. The emergence of mobile computing put access in the hands of most people in most locations – this happened around the turn of the century, and nothing that “big” has happened since. The technological changes in the past two decades have simply been more of the same.  

Aside of “more of the same” there are still a few unfulfilled promises that have been lingering: artificial intelligence and big data are the most cited.   But these ideas are not new.  In the 1980s, the idea of an omniscient AI with access to global information was the topic of books and movies, and science fiction writers probably stumbled across the notion forty or fifty years before that.  

And should these two things finally be delivered, what will be the dramatic change that will occur?  Better search results?   Is that really something that will change the world, or something that will be marginally better, faster, and more intuitive than we already have?  Given that the majority of people have access to the majority of information that is of practical value, I don’t see this as a world-shaking change.

Globalization

Speaking of “the world” (as it’s the scale of grandiose claims), the second major force of change for the past few decades has been globalization.   This has been happening gradually since the end of the Second World War.   Arguably, it’s been happening since the time that the wooden ships of the British Empire connected economies around the world, or even when the Silk Road of the Mongolian Empire connected the civilizations of the east and west.

For the most part, globalization has been an economic phenomenon: it has given companies easier access to customers and suppliers in foreign markets at the cost of facing competition from other firms that would normally have been kept at bay by distance.  Its effect on consumers, however, has been largely positive: a wider array of suppliers grants consumers access to a broader selection of goods and advantageous pricing.

And again, there is no future change from globalization other than “more of the same.”  As world economies develop and additional resources become available to buyers in the commercial and residential markets, there will be even more things and price competition will become even more acute.   This is nothing new, merely the continuation of a trend.

There is also a similar force of deregulation, which does for domestic markets what is done for the world market on a smaller scale – but because markets were not regulated until regulations were passed, deregulation is not a change to something different, but a return to a previous state.   It is certainly advantageous for an industry to be deregulated, but this is not revolutionary.

Consumer Behaviors

The final force of enthusiasm about change are the differences in consumer behavior – but my sense is that this is not much different to the effect of globalization.   A great deal of attention is paid to the subtle differences between Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennial – but this is strictly in reference to the American market, which is neither the largest nor the most important market in the world.  

Overseas, similar changes have been taking place for years as younger generations depart from tradition to join the global market.  There was a great deal of buzz about the “shin jin rui” or “Japanese Generation X” about four decades ago, the emergence of the Russian capitalist a decade later, and similar phenomena in nations the world over as they become industrialized and join the global marketplace.

But again, it is a “more of the same” phenomenon – the growth in consumer income that results from industrialization creates a growth in demand for consumer goods (primarily luxury goods) and a shift toward greater individual choice due to the increased variety that is brought by globalization.    As more locations industrialize, it is predictable their consumption will follow this pattern rather than taking on a new and unheard of shape.

***

In the end, there is little consideration of any force of change that is really new – it is merely a continuation of trends that are twenty, fifty, or even more years old – so the “change” is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and there’s very little insight into anything truly different than has already been witnessed.    This is not to say that some sweeping and revolutionary factor will suddenly emerge, simply that none has for quite some time, nor seems likely given that the world is still taking time to adjust and mature into the three factors listed above.

Consumer Tastes

In spite of all efforts to influence consumers’ preferences, taste remains the primary criteria for purchasing choices.  Individual likes/dislikes drive preference in a vague manner that is only partially explained by innate and socially acquired factors.   Some patterns have been observed, though most are based on the rational factors that ought to influence a consumer’s choices rather than the irrational factors that have a more demonstrable effect in actual purchasing behavior.

It is theorized that while cultures as a whole consume a broad array of goods, each falls into a pattern as a result of habitual consumption.  When societies were more isolated, consumer preferences tended to what was locally available and there was little intrusion of or exposure to anything else, accompanied by a species of bigotry that regards anything from outside the community as foreign and undesirable simply because it is outside of the norm.

It is believed by some that tastes can be most easily influenced during formative childhood years rather than challenging the established preferences of adults, such that earlier familiarity with a variety products and brands leads children to be more accepting of new ones later in life.  This is practiced in the home, before children become independent as consumers: the choice of brands made by their parents influence their buying decisions throughout their lifetime – for a specific, narrow range of brands or a more liberal sampling.

There is also evidence of culture’s impact in consumer preferences over time.  The “golden ages” of societies are often accompanied by a plethora of product options, which leads to more varied consumption, and during an economic recession there is a return to less hedonistic and more practical choices.   As such, the flexibility of taste fluctuates with the economic success of societies.

In that sense, consider the past century in western culture:  the periods of recession and expansion marked by the World Wars, the Great Depression, the postwar recovery, the mid-seventies recession, the boom era of the 1980s and 1990s, then the recession of the early twenty-first century.  Each period of recession coincides with a retraction of product variety and an increase in self-denial, and each period of expansion with the return of choice and self-gratification.

Furthermore, the globalization of markets has enabled consumers to regain some of the options they might otherwise have lost by making products available at a much lower cost, even in times of recession. This may be a symptom of a cultural identity crisis, but the products of foreign manufacture adopted into domestic use are pursued in a mercenary manner – consumers seek to gain the advantage of the product within their means and are not concerned with the cultural underpinnings that led the components to become popular in their own culture.

Imperialism vs. Globalism

When someone uses the phrase "capitalist imperialism," I don't expect what follows to demonstrate much intelligence or common sense ... but on the rare occasions that it is backed by rational argument, it makes me stop and think.  And in this sense, I do think that there may be some shred of merit to the aspersion that should lead to a reconsideration of certain practices.

In this instance, the accusation of imperialism was backed by the plausible, and perhaps undeniable, claim that along with products and services, Americans are exporting their culture into countries where it is not wanted and may be harmful.   Granted, it's not strictly an American problem, nor is it even an originally American one - within five minutes of listening to any European, you get the distinct sense that his perspective is that there are only two ways to do things - the European and some inferior and less effective way.   Given the values of freedom and individualism in American culture, it does seem more poignantly ironic that we would be as bigoted as Europeans, and this is likely an element of their culture that should have been left on the other side of the Atlantic.

But to return to topic ... American firms are seeking to place their products in global markets in order to generate revenue - but at the same time they are failing to consider whether the products they sell are at all appropriate to the markets they are attempting to enter.   The same principle applies domestically, when a firm wishes to mass-produce a standardized product and, instead of adapting it to the needs and preferences of a particular market segment, seek to convince the segment that they should accept the mass-produced product without modification, adapting their behavior or accepting compromised outcomes to suit the product rather than seeking a product that is suitable to their situation and needs such as they actually are.  Is there any wonder that this would cause resentment?

Because the market segment is in this practice defined by arbitrary political boundaries when discussing imperialism, the argument becomes polluted by jingoism - but if you strip away the patriotic aspects the argument still has merit.   The proper way to approach a market is to study the market first, determine its idiosyncratic needs and preferences, and then offer a product that is suitable to those needs - rather than presuming an existing product will be suitable and seeking to convince the market to purchase it.   Pushing an inappropriate product is not only more difficult and expensive, but it damages the esteem of the brand and sours the prospects to any future overtures.

Admittedly, in insisting that the customers in foreign markets have an expectation of being served by suppliers that are considerate and respectful of their needs and preferences may itself be a matter of cultural egocentricity: the desire to be respected and treated as an individual is a distinctly American value.   However, I find it absurd to consider that there are cultures that are entirely malleable, in which people have no sense of dignity and abandon themselves to external influences and are happy to abandon the "old ways" of their own culture in favor of a new foreign influence.  

That's not as ridiculous as it sounds - especially when you consider how youth the world over, desperate to define their own generation as being different to their elders, but at the same time lacking the intellectual sophistication to define a culture of their own, tend to readily adopt the trappings of other cultures (antiquated or foreign ones in particular) in order to seem distinctive.  That includes the youth in the American domestic market, for whom anything unfamiliar is attractive and there is presently a cultural void, such that anything distinctive or different, be it from a foreign market or a previous time, is embraced.

It's also not merely in foreign markets where ill-suited goods are foisted on prospects, as this often occurs even in domestic marketing, where firms aggregate populations into generic masses and executives based decisions on the assumption that customers must follow the same lines of logic that he does - or if they fail to do so, they are unintelligent and need to be educated about the product.

Even so, my sense is this is a limited segment of the population, at home and abroad, and that most people are happy with their own culture and regard external intrusion, especially when it is pushy about imposing itself, as unwelcome.  The global marketplace is not homogeneous, and will vehemently resist attempts to be homogenized, and until a common culture emerges (which is not likely to occur for quite some time), firms will need to be highly circumspect when attempting to export domestic goods abroad - or even attempting to expand markets internally on the assumption that a product appropriate to one segment will be acceptable to all.

So in the end, accusations of imperialism are likely melodrama, but there is some scintilla of value in considering the possibility that they are merely reactions to American behavior in world markets.   When we insist that foreign markets not only purchase our products, but adopt our way of life, we have likely crossed the line between globalism and imperialism, and would be best advised to step back and think things over.