The End Gap.
The issue of consumerism is complicated. To clarify endings within this fog, I want to identify a gap which is made up of fundamental problems. This gap happens between the consumer’s regular usage of the product and its end or demise. At this stage the engagement of the consumer with their product fades, activities lessen, interest wanes. This gap has four commonly-observed characteristics. Jointly, they generate a vacuum of meaning and purpose in the consumer experience, which limits any improvement or positive action at the end of the consumer lifecycle. This has the potential for laying the foundation for many, wider, critical ills in consumerism.
1/4. The consumer - provider relationship breaks
What began as a comfortable bonding between consumer and provider tumbles out of control as engagement fades. Either party might seek the end of the relationship, for any manner of reasons. The break in this partnership also breaks joint responsibility for the assets of the relationship. Society, through its wider functions such as legislation, waste management or consumer protection, is then left to pick up the broken pieces. When the relationship is intact, the provider and consumer work on issues together. For example, in the Initial stages the provider normally gives instructions and guides usage. At off-boarding this signal weakens, thus leaving the consumer alone, uninstructed and unsupported. The provider, meanwhile, loses a source of information and feedback. When the relationship is current, communication creates a data flow that informs product improvements. But this link fades as the end approaches. The provider has deep knowledge about the assembly and materials in their products. When the relationship breaks, the provider loses access to the consumer and with it the ability to instruct the consumer, reclaim the assets and materials involved in the consumer engagement.
2/4. Asset definition is lost
At the end of the consumer lifecycle people seek out convenient solutions for disposal. For example, throwing physical products in the trash or deleting an app without closing the account. When this happens, the definition of the material waste is lost. It merges with other waste products, from other failed and ended consumer engagements, thus creating a mass of unknown elements. These assets become generic, lose identity, and are merged with other assets. This also reduces the ability to measure the impact of consumption. The physical elements of a product relationship often require accurate disposal. Data might need clearing up or payments completed to close accounts properly. Between the beginning and the end of the consumer relationship, definitions are focused on benefitting the short term aims of the original sale. The material knowledge and language required at off-boarding is rarely talked about in the relationship beforehand. How to dispose of a new phone won’t be mentioned at on-boarding. What types of plastics a pen is made from won’t be
detailed at purchase. The consumer often has to act independently at this point. They need to dispose of their own assets, uninstructed by the provider. Guidance about how to do it now falls to society. This guidance will be expressed in generalist terms, due to the overwhelming quantities that need to be disposed of.
3/4. Actors and actions are anonymised
Alongside the loss of the relationship between the consumer and the provider, there is the loss of identity attached to the assets used in the consumer experience. At the end of a physical product’s life, consumer ownership is relinquished, thus detaching the identity of the consumer from the long-term impact of their consumption. In data relationships, consumer assumptions about identity removal at the end are misplaced when data is sold on or amalgamated with other data sources. Data is often being re-attached in the background, quite unknown to the consumer. Thereafter they might experience covert engagements with third parties, like targeted advertising.
4/4. Routes to neutralising are blurred
Consumer society has been indulged with the idea, arguably over centuries, that consumption can have few negative consequences. Increasingly over the last few decades society has recognised this delusion. Consumers throw items away far too easily. This makes for bad choices at the off-boarding experience. Consumer waste is taken from the home, out of state, beyond borders and shipped away to countries with lower recycling standards. A similar approach is taken for carbon neutralising. Companies and countries who fail to curtail their own carbon can easily offset it by investing in remote schemes in far-away countries. As a consumer experience, the clarity of neutralising is blurred and distant. Examples such as recycling, data deletion or credit ratings can have false conclusions. Long term impact remains undefined, lacking permanence and failing to be neutralized. Issues also surface in homes as consumers hoard old unused items that lack clear, safe routes to disposal. This results in the increase of off-site storage, hoarding of e-waste and digital assets.
These four characteristics of off-boarding in the consumer lifecycle entrench critical problems with consumerism. Their consequences cause widespread damage to the environment, personal privacy, and social cohesion. On one side of this gap is a buoyant individual experience of consumption. On the other side of the gap is the worst aspect of consumerism.
