Thursday 12 December 2013

Consuming experiences, not stuff, is still consumerism


I went to an interesting talk at the RSA today by James Wallman who has just published a book called 'Stuffocation'. His basic argument was that in the society of scarcity of around a generation ago, what mattered in life was having more stuff – i.e. in a society of scarcity, materialism is not a dirty word.

But as we have moved into a society of plenty, materialism and 'more stuff' are no longer the answer to the question of 'What will make us happy?'. So far, so good.

He goes on to suggest that, in our society of plenty, what we do is now more important than what we have in terms of its contribution to our happiness. He therefore advocates the idea of 'experientialism' – of seeking experiences rather than new stuff.

He made some interesting arguments but the trouble is he didn't go far enough. He was careful to state that he didn't want his ideas to be seen as anti-consumerist – but why not? The only way they would have any real value is if they were anti-consumerist. Otherwise, he is simply shifting the problem of consumption from stuff to experiences. We'll be on a treadmill seeking the next new experience and trying to find the money and lifestyles to enable these experiences to happen, and rather than enjoying our experiences our lives will become a list of experiences to try and tick off. It'll be no different to our attitudes towards stuff today. And in fact we already have this attitude towards experiences! See the forthcoming Life Squared booklet 'How to achieve less' – out at the end of the year – for more details on this issue.

The problem we have in the modern world is about much more than having too much stuff and the fact that this doesn't make us happy. The broader problem is the fact that our lives are focussed on acquiring this stuff and of chasing a particular vision of 'the good life' that seeks us to acquire more. The point is that we're making too many sacrifices in terms of our personal identities, autonomy, stress levels and fulfilment in order to chase this pointless acquisition.

We live in a bubble in the modern world. We need to help people burst this bubble and live truly autonomous lives. That is the only way we'll lead the fulfilled lives we really want – and sadly just changing our consumption from stuff to experiences won't do this.

Saturday 30 November 2013

Listen, don't change

I was at the Compass Change:How? conference today and was struck by a few things in a discussion we had about 'why it's so hard getting people to change'.  By this it meant getting members of the public to take action for a more progressive, sustainable (etc.) world.

The first thing that struck me was the way that many people seeking change on progressive issues seem to believe there are two sets of people - first, us - the people seeking a better world, who are ethical, intelligent, well-informed and see the world for how it really is, and them - the general public that we are trying to influence - who aren't so enlightened and don't care so much.  This assumption is deeply condescending to other people and completely untrue.  And is perhaps at the root of our problem of why we find it so hard to gain social change.

The second thing that interested me directly follows from this point - it was the assumption we have as 'change seekers' that other people need to be 'changed' in some way - in other words, the idea that we need to shift them from their current position to another one, because we don't approve of their current position.  When we articulate it like this, it's not hard to see why we're having problems gaining social change on key issues - because we're trying to herd people into opinions and actions that they're not currently prepared to take, and we're doing so in a way that pays little attention or respect to what they think.

These observations gained greater credibility in my mind as one member of the conference suggested that the best way he had found to gain change was to actually ask people what matters to them and then to listen to their views properly and respectfully - and then try to find a course of action that takes account of these.  It's really no surprise that this should be one of the most successful ways of gaining change as it doesn't try to change people - it tries to change issues by focussing on the things that people care about.

But this idea of 'listening to people' has its risks for the progressive change makers.  I hear many progressive voices saying that we must become more democratic and let people have a voice - but at the same time they want people to hold particular views and behave in particular ways.  These two aims are conflicting - it's one or the other.

As people seeking change, we've got to work out what we want from people.  If democracy matters to us and we want to let people have a voice we have to do this whilst understanding that people may choose some things we don't like as progressives. 

These are just thoughts I'm chewing over at the moment, and I've not formed a definitive opinion on them but they do provide food for thought....

Tuesday 19 November 2013

No means no


We've been doing a bit of 'secret shopping' with some charities - making donations to them and seeing how they communicate with us as a result.  It's a real eye-opener and shows that lots of organisations have work to do on their communication plans - one charity has already sent us 3 identical emails since we donated just over a week ago!

Our secret shopping experience led us to a conversation in the office about emails from organisations (not just charities) and how counterproductive their efforts to gather names and email us can be.  Two main points came up in our conversation:

1. Some organisations still seem unable to take 'no' for an answer when sending their communications, and also fail to see the negative effects this is having on people's participation.   By saying 'no' I mean failing to take people off mailing or email lists when asked to do so.  Not only does this annoy people, it may well also make them (I speak from personal experience) less likely to use the media concerned,  deal with the organisation concerned or sign up for any similar transactions in the future.

2. Some organisations seem to be seeking quantity over quality of email addresses - and this can be counter-productive for them.  For example, we signed a petition on a campaigning site and gave our email address. When we left our email address there was no opportunity to unsubscribe from future communications - which is very annoying.  Once we'd completed the petition, we got the inevitable emails from the organisation, which annoyed us further.  This has put us off taking such action with this organisation in the future - and reduces our motivation to participate with others, as we see the likelihood of this happening again.

One of the key principles of online fundraising and campaigning is to make it as easy as possible for people to undertake the transaction.  By failing to include opt outs, or just not listening to our contacts, we actually place another obstacle in front of people to responding to our cause.  Let's make sure we remove it.

Thursday 18 July 2013

The moral footballer

A report in The Guardian today notes that a Newcastle United footballer has got into hot water with his club for refusing to wear the club shirt bearing the name of the club sponsor Wonga.

He's apparently "refusing to promote the money-lending company on religious grounds and has offered to wear an unbranded shirt or one bearing the name of a charity".  And I think you have to applaud him for taking a stand like this - he's done it on religious grounds, but I think anyone could do it on moral grounds in promoting this sort of money lender - and we don't see enough of people taking a stand like this against something that would be inconsistent with their values.

It's not the easiest step to take - particularly in a world like that of football - but it sets a good example to all of us to stand by our principles (and do it in a reasonable way).  

Update 26th July 2013
It looks like a few other people feel the same way about this issue - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/justin-welby-war-on-wonga

Tuesday 2 April 2013

Life versus adverts

I had a much-needed day off recently and decided to visit a few places in London - like the London Library (wonderful) and Westminster Abbey (claustrophobic in its conservativism).

I ended up at the Westfield shopping centre at Shepherd's Bush to meet a friend for dinner before going to a gig, and I had to write a blog entry for it because I've never seen anything like it.  It's a cathederal to consumerism - a building on such a massive scale that it seems to go on forvever. 

All the shops and ads surrounding them are of course glossy, but the place (like most shopping centres) feels fake; a place that sucks meaning out of one's life rather than adds it.

All of the pictures in the shops and adverts are of people doing real things - from walking in the country to laughing with friends - yet almost none of the products they are advertising are actually essential for undertaking these activities.  It is as if the retailers know very well that buying their wares won't make anyone happy, so they have to sell them by associating them with the simple, authentic activities that actually do give us fulfilment - like walking in nature or having fun with friends - in order to sell them to you.  Yet their wares won't contribute at all to your enjoyment of these activities - so in the end they are simply void, vacuous, worthless.  It's worth remembering this when you're feeling yourself being sucked in by an advert!

Overall, the experience leaves one with a sense of emptiness and a desire to get back to the real things in life that actually do matter!

Saturday 9 February 2013

The joy of advertising

My dislike of advertising grows stronger by the day - partly because of the corrosive and limiting effect it can have on people's lives, worldviews and aspirations, but also partly because of the insulting, manipulative rubbish that the industry continues to pump out.

Take this new McDonald's ad for example - peddling the idea that burgers can mend bridges between families.  It's so obviously revolting as an idea I really don't understand why more people don't complain more about adverts like these - I know lots of people get annoyed by them but maybe there's just no outlet for complaining about them.  Hopefully that will change soon with an idea we're working on...

As a final treat in this post - and when you thought things couldn't get more absurd, Justin Timberlake has joined the ranks of celebs becoming 'Creative Directors' for big brands, as he is unveiled as the 'Creative Director' of Bud Light Platinum.  This is of course nonsense in itself, but the real fun is in the press releases. Says Paul Chibe, vp U.S. marketing, Anheuser-Busch:

 "Justin Timberlake is one of the greatest creative minds in the entertainment industry, and his insights will help us further define Bud Light Platinum’s identity in the lifestyle space."

Lifestyle space.  Ahem.

Friday 18 January 2013

Time management - some caveats

I'm now a couple of weeks into my new time management regime (as are one or two others who are trying it out) and I'm quite pleased with how it's going!  A few caveats have occurred to me over the last few days on the advice in the previous post though:
  • It's all about discipline - you could read a million 'how to manage your time' blogs but you'll never  do any of them properly unless you exercise discipline over your time (like stopping yourself browsing the web when you need to focus on a task) - as that's what they all involve; 
  • The effects of implementing this time management plan may not come as a sudden, obvious 'wow - everything works!' but as a longer term sense of calm and satisfaction that you're getting a bit more done 
  • Some of the advice may seem counterintuitive, time-wasting and boring when you're doing it - like spending 10 mins sorting out your priorities and to-do list at the start of each week/day but the time it saves over the course of the day could be huge!

Tuesday 8 January 2013

Time management

One of the most challenging things to deal with in my work life is the number of things there are to do - from the mundane but important stuff to the meaty, interesting and fulfilling stuff. It can be a real challenge to make sure that I'm getting to do a bit of the interesting stuff regularly, and to not get swallowed up by the endless mundane but important stuff.

So, I've made myself a plan of how to manage my time each day and I thought I'd share it in case it's useful, as I know loads of people have similar time management issues!

Here are the principles I've set out for how to manage my time in the new year:

1. Each year/month/week/day - stand back for a bit at the start/end of previous one and set out a few big things I want to achieve in each - and amid all the detailed cack do them. 

2. Note these in diary. Note detailed action points as they come up on another piece of paper. 

3. Allocate good chunks of time each day to do priority tasks - and focus on them properly (get immersed) when you do them. Enjoy and focus on this meaty stuff whilst acknowledging you have to do the other stuff. 

4. Only 3 email review sessions a day (and tell others I'm doing this - if they need a quick reply, call me) 

5. Only 3 web browses a day (really important) - and only in spare time. 

6. Be disciplined (inc say no, don't do things immediately to please people or because they're easy - do them when they fit for you) and don't get distracted. Then your priorities will be clearer, work will be more enjoyable and you'll get more of the important stuff done. If a call comes in during your 'priority' time, answer it if you need to, but add more priority time at the end of the session to make it up. And allocate any action points to after your priority session if you can - only rarely will things be so urgent that they can't wait. 

7. Above all - stay calm and remember you're in control of all of this - it doesn't have to control you. 

Two days into the year and this arrangement seems to be working - we'll see how it's going in another month's time! Let me know how you get on with it if you try it!