Inconspicuous Consumption in the Age of Affluence
In an earlier post, Them That Has, Gets: The Rich Get a Lot Richer, I mentioned that the 5% of the households with the highest income accounted for about 35% of total consumption in the United States. This percent will probably rise in the future if the long-term trend towards more income inequality continues to grow.
Two related comments. The relatively affluent probably account for an even higher percent of discretionary spending. Other studies indicate that rising income inequality is a global trend, occurring in most wealthy countries. Also, there is a rapidly growing elite of super rich in the rest of the world, as the Forbes list of the wealthiest families in the world indicates.
This raises a number of questions. Given the level of imports of mass produced products, is mass production still the basis of an industrialized economy? And what about marketing? Is it more profitable to go after the mass market or, invoking Pareto’s Law, the small percent with high income and spending? Will the new basis for economic growth and job creation be more dependent on providing products and services to the affluent, from the high end of the upper middle class to the super rich?
Branded luxury products and personalized services that were marks of status for the rich have filtered down to the two-income upper middle class family. Luxury cars, expensive watches, nannies, personal trainers, financial advisers, private schools, and designer clothes and shoes are now common in upper middle class neighborhoods.
So how can the really affluent differentiate themselves from the merely upper middle class? I suggest the following:
· Customizing luxury products. Anyone can afford to lease a Mercedes. But what if it were customized with a unique color or specially designed wheels?
· Personalized information and services.
o Health and genetic screening services, including customized anti-aging programs.
o More exclusive boutique doctors and private clinics.
o Personalized nutritional advice and sensor screening.
· Personalized high tech products and services.
o Unique app on a Smartphone.
o Expert information and analysis.
I’m sure you can think of many more products and services aimed at the affluent. Some of these are really nothing more than trying to think of more exclusive variants of existing products and services.
But what is the ultimate product or service? The one that confers the most status or satisfaction? One of a kind – unique products, services and experiences.
Why is there so much status in collecting art? One reason is that each piece of art is unique. Someone rich owns something that no one else owns.
There was a satirical movie, The Freshman, where very rich people met secretly to spend a huge amount of money for a meal featuring an animal on the endangered species list. It understood the psychology of owning art, even stolen art, could be extended to other products, services and experiences.
Do you think that someone who is very rich would pay for a unique, one time experience that no one else could have? What if in the movie Total Recall you could ask for and have programmed a unique virtual experience?
The latest novels of William Gibson also explore this idea. If you were wealthy, how much would you pay to own a one of a kind piece of clothing, no label, hand-made from a unique combination of design, fabric and quality finishing? Can you think of any related examples?
This suggests that the demand for people with certain kinds of specialized knowledge or skills, including artists, designers and artisans who cater to the rich, may be increasing, and a source of economic growth and new jobs in wealthy societies.
Maybe even the newly rich will come to realize that the private enjoyment of something unique, or limited sharing among an elite group of connoisseurs, is more satisfying that the conspicuous display of consumption for social status.
How about $200,000 trips into space? Already available, although not exclusive of course.
ReplyDeleteIn the midst of the tax cut extension debate, there were at least some comments to the effect that lower- and middle-income folks "will spend it" while the upper-income people will not. Is there actually any evidence for that?
Paul