In a consumer-driven, market-based economy, advertising is king. The American buyer is confronted with thousands of options per day through radio, television and print and must wade through not only claims these companies make about their products, but also the claims they make about their practices and beliefs.
Walking through the aisles at Target, with 20 different types of any one product making the same claims to perfection, the absence of companies that say they make their products with a conscience in mind is apparent.
Many buyers could care less about whether the CEO of the company canning their chicken broth is racist, sexist or another nefarious –ist. When it comes to environmentally friendly products, consumers tend to care even less when they realize how much more expensive it is.
The feel-good fantasy of purchasing all of life’s needs from companies that are benevolent takes a backseat to several factors, chief among them being money. The cost of environmentally made products tends to be higher, and some argue quality suffers as a result of sustainable production methods and materials.
Every product uses natural resources in its production and delivery, but this one-time occurrence to get a product into the marketplace does not need to be repeated. By shifting consumer demand from new items to used items, the lifespan of a pair of jeans is extended beyond the wants and desires of their first owners. These old jeans take the place of a pair of new jeans that would have required many more resources to bring into the hands of a buyer.
Brand-name clothing or accessories are appealing to the young demographic, but in light of big-name companies donating to political causes or taking sides in controversial topics, students have been pondering on the idea that paying a lot of money to walk around like a corporate billboard isn't just ridiculous. It's also advertising that the consumer agrees with the standpoints of the company they're wearing.
Brand names such as TOMS shoes help show up other big-name brands because they are at least providing help to people who really need it. When has Urban Outfitters ever sent a pair of jeans to a third world country for every pair of pants they sell?
The argument must also be made that these companies do these benevolent acts to serve themselves rather than the common good. The line between a company's morals and its profits can be very unclear, and sometimes nonexistent. While nonprofit organizations are not the only groups in the world who can do good deeds without being accused of selfishness, for-profit companies face the challenge of convincing consumers of this truth.
At ASU, it’s easy to see how companies pander to the wants and desires of students in order to make sales. Many college students, in turn, take it upon themselves to ensure they are not purchasing from companies that differ from their own beliefs.
If Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie CEO Richard Hayne is indeed anti-abortion, as some have claimed, should consumers factor that into their decision to buy?
Does knowing a burger is wrapped in Bible verses change the mind of the American atheist, forcing them into lesser burger options?
Factoring morals into the buying process may seem more trouble than it's worth, but with increasing involvement in politics on the part of big businesses, it pays to research what buying is supporting.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Follow The State Press on Twitter or like us on Facebook.