In this pre-Black Friday period, we are faced with two movements. On the one hand, a large majority of companies trying to lure us with promotions and promises to take part in the great mass of consumption. On the other hand, different voices, in particular committed organisations, urging us not to fall into the traps of this annual bargain event that should not be missed and to stand up against its mercantile temptations.
My point here is to try to bring some nuance to this anti-Black Friday (Black Friday in the US and Canada) movement.
Certainly, we are a society of overconsumption. In the field of clothing for example, according to the Ellen Macarthur Foundation1, between 2000 and 2015, production doubled while the average use of a product fell by 40%. The calls for a change in behavior and above all for a reduction in our consumption are completely legitimate and even visible.
Now, can people shop at these events without being stigmatized or singled out?
I am mainly talking about people for whom these appointments are an opportunity to pay less for certain items. I see some here wondering if there are really good deals on these days like Black Friday or the sales after Christmas. Yes, probably. With the competition between merchants, consumers may find the opportunity to pay less. The ambient mimicry makes companies participate in the movement for fear of losing customers, so there are good deals.
Above all, reduce inequalities
My argument here is that the solution does not only lie in speeches inviting people to consume less, but fundamentally in reducing the inequalities between the rich and the poor. Various studies clearly show, before the pandemic, a form of cleavage in the retail trade where what works is on the one hand the luxury brands or those located towards the top of the range and on the other what we call discount stores frequented mostly by consumers with little means. Even more, the COVID-19 crisis has accentuated these social inequalities2. As more and more people see their purchasing power melt away, sales of luxury goods are experiencing a 22% jump this year 3.
As long as our economic system remains camped in a wild capitalism, inequalities will continue to widen, bringing important impacts on the kind of society in which we will live.
Discount stores and multinational disposables will continue to thrive by exploiting labor, often foreign, to offer low prices for customers who often cannot afford to go elsewhere because of their low income.
Speeches to reduce our ecological footprint and participate in creating a better world for our children are necessary. On the other hand, they will not necessarily resonate with a population caught between the tree of unbridled consumption, a sign of social success and encouraged by various media such as social networks, and the bark of insufficient income.
Indeed, according to 2019 figures from the Institut de la statistique du Québec442% of Quebecers earn less than $30,000 a year, while the income gap between the rich and the poor in Quebec is the highest in Canada5. Moreover, at the country level, the richest 10% own 58% of the wealth, and the bottom 50% own only 6%.
These differences have significant consequences in terms of consumer choices, but also in many other respects, including our total ecological footprint as a society. Beyond certain discourses that are both legitimate and moralizing, let us ask ourselves the question of the kind of society in which we want to live and the means to achieve it.
3. According to Imran Amed, Founder and CEO of The Business of Fashion