Pro-Consumer? Or Pro-Consumption?

If we want to talk about how identity is constantly cultivated to encourage consumption, then we have to talk about the environment that encourages it. So let’s do that.

So… “Pro-consumer”-ism.

The terms “pro-consumer” and “pro-consumption” are confused just a bit too often. Very often, cultivated identities (like “gamers”) love to talk about how pro-consumer they are — in fact almost any “nerd” sect of pop culture gets like this. Most art in the “nerd” realm, be it video games, comics, or certain movies, is framed almost entirely from a business perspective. There are conventions, announcements, metrics, metascores, rankings, revenue reports… Other than the works of art themselves, essentially all of the talk surrounding them is overtly commerce-oriented. This talk is not, by any stretch, about how best to ensure consumers are treated well, either. It’s about how well multinational entities — companies — are doing.

But it’s not pro-consumer talk. It’s pro-consumption talk.

Let’s start by putting a few things thing very plainly. First, I would normally not call people “consumers” as it is somewhat dehumanizing. I’m using the term to demonstrate that even in this framework, what people fondly and loudly like to call “pro-consumer” is bunk logic.

Second, “pro-consumer” means regulations, consumer protections, and transparency. Third, “pro-consumption” means “feed me my successful fandom shit just how I like it, bitch.”

So what are consumer protections? From Wikipedia: “Consumer protection is a group of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade, competition and accurate information in the marketplace.” Essentially, consumer protections are regulations on the market. Being pro-“consumer,” then, is at least partially anti-“Free Market.” You can even see it there in the definition of “consumer protection,” plain as day: “fair trade.” The Fair Trade movement demands regulation on working conditions and other aspects of trade — arguably not enough, but the very idea of regulation is against “Free” Trade. The free part doesn’t mean “freedom.” It means a lack of regulation.

Regulations that stop organizations from harming “consumers” — or indeed, anyone — are what we should be calling pro-“consumer,” if anything.

“Consumers” are harmed by playing the same role in the modern capitalist cycle as a resource. “Consumers” are to be mined. They’re harmed by addiction-encouraging business practices. This is accomplished through marketing that ties their identities to their unending consumption. This is largely why the gaming world complains a lot about microtransactions, but tolerates them. The problem is, that tolerance has proven this model works. They’ve leaked into other aspects of our lives — notice how it costs $5.99 to watch a movie on a plane now, bougies? It used to be free! Bottled water is a microtransaction — one older than gaming. Anyone pro-consumer would care about that significantly more than if Random Localized Video Game had the best boobies it can have.

Why? Because being pro-“consumer” has literally fuck nothing to do with video games.

In neoliberal capitalism, our current economic and social system, we are all “consumers;” we all consume. This system isn’t going to change tomorrow. That’s why regulation and oversight are important. If tomorrow, we made the jump to Social Democracy I’d be pretty stoked, but I’d be significantly more shocked.

Being pro-“consumer” doesn’t mean screaming about your own personal preferences until businesses concede to every demand of a small angry mob that cares about nice game boobies a lot. Being pro-“consumer” means holding businesses accountable for their business practice. “Pro-consumer” does not mean you have the right to have content molded to your sensibilities, because that is not a company screwing you over. If you don’t like the localized version of the content you want that is brought to the US, don’t buy it. You have that power as a “consumer.” It’s probably not going to change anything about what that company does (despite calls to “vote with your dollar”), but you have a choice about what you do with your time and your life. Why pollute it with stuff you don’t like?

If a company thinks they will make more money toning something down or changing it, they will do just that. This is how business works. If you don’t like that, your beef is not with whatever force for “political correctness” you think is your enemy. Your beef is with capitalism itself.

Many people know very well that all this screaming over “integrity,” “free speech,” and “pro-consumer” is people scared people wishing to protect their fragile identity. Many consumption-oriented identities have been cultivated and they have felt catered to. But the companies in charge of whatever thing their consumptive identity was cultivated around then realized there’s more money to be made elsewhere.

This is people angry they’re being left behind. Actual pro-“consumer” viewpoints would have prevented this from ever happening. The cultivation of identity based around consumption (“toxic fandom” or hyperfandom) is anti-“consumer.” The nurturing of dependence on a stationary situation is anti-“consumer.”

The only constant in life is change. Everything with a beginning has an end.

Enabling people to feel like something will “always be this way” (especially something as fickle as entertainment) is dangerous, because look what they will do to fight the inevitable change.

Being truly pro-“consumer” would mean at very least advocacy against the current structure of business. Things are set up in favor of businesses when relative to consumers. Being pro-“consumer” means undoing a lopsided situation that favors faceless entities with at very least a perceived obligation to make as much money as possible.

Corporate law should be top priority to anyone claiming to be pro-consumer, not boobies.

Frankly, any kind of argument tying “pro-consumer”-ism to content preference is totally ludicrous. Women who care how they are represented in art and content are also “consumers.” Remember, in neoliberal capitalist logic, everyone is a “consumer.” It’s flat-out the single most detrimental fact to the entire argument: any people who want change are also “consumers.”

While I believe this “everyone is a consumer” logic is ultimately harmful, as it creates a situation where a demographic has to “prove itself” economically to be taken seriously — it is the framework we are currently running on and within it is the explanation for why people get angry when something they like “forgets about its fans:” they reached a point where it makes more sense not to cater to a specific demographic. This change brings about more potential “consumers,” which is arguably both good and bad. Infinite growth is not good, but inclusiveness is. It does bring up another question — is inclusiveness a good thing that gets co-opted to cultivate identity?

Ultimately, being “pro-consumer” means being against a consolidation of power that would be harmful to a “consumer.” Generally, none of the people yelling about how “pro-consumer” they are seem to be spending much time advocating as such. To those with cultivated identity, it just means “don’t change anything unless we tell you to,” which just isn’t going to be how a company acts.

It doesn’t matter what they do; private organizations know there is inevitably a backlash coming from their most fervent support as they expand their business. They don’t care. If they’ve gotten to that point, it means they’ve outgrown the people with identities they have cultivated and that’s why they are expanding.

That the endless growth cycle leaves people behind is inherent in its design — all the work put into that cultivation eventually has to yield a crop.

Crops are finite, but the techniques learned from their cultivation allow for expansion. Resources may be spread a bit more thin on a crop with an ever-increasing size, but the sheer amount produced more than makes up for it.

The difference? Corn doesn’t have emotions.