How Design Delivers Paradoxical Answers to Capitalism
By Isabel Elia
The triple crisis we are currently experiencing — financial, public health and climate — reveals the paradoxical character of the capitalist discourse and its original idea of “progress” and “growth”. As the book Design, Method and Industrialism by Freddy van Camp et al. (1998) recalls, the union of Design with the business environment was a bet of the 1950s/60s, significantly marked by post-war developmental thinking. There was no guarantee that betting on this alliance was the ideal path to “progress”, nor was there a concern with the environment, since in the prevailing view of the time, nature would be an infinite and controllable resource.
Source: Creativemarket.com
A DAY IN LAURA'S LIFE (BEFORE THE PANDEMIC)
Laura is a middle-class young woman in a large Brazilian city of your choice. She was an intern in the city center and lived on the outskirts of town. On her way home, there was a busy corner with a large shopping mall. Laura used the “DOWNTOWN MIAMI MALL” as a shortcut to the bus stop. One rainy Tuesday afternoon, a poster caught her eye.
18:00
Laura walked through the mall as usual: straight on, tired, without ambitious for the rest of the day. She tried not to succumb to shop windows and offers, which always sparkled — a difficult temptation. That's when the poster challenged her plans: film "ANY TRILOGY ABOUT THE MAFIA — PART II — ONLY TODAY WITH 50% OFF." The young woman slowed down her usual stride, hesitated, but continued on. “It's late, it's raining, I'm broke. I'm going home". Her certainty was short-lived, very short-lived, as Laura convinced herself that this time it would be worth it: she had already heard a lot about the trilogy on Instagram. “It even won some awards” — she was thrilled, recognizing on the poster some 5 or 6 laurel wreaths, but so small that she didn't even read what the awards were. Even so, her sense of timing spoke louder. She could even smell the popcorn.
She turned around and went to the cinema counter to buy a ticket, feeling like a part of a select group of smart and attentive people, capable of getting a good deal at the right time.
23:00
The mall's lights were already off when Laura left the theater, extremely irritated by an inevitable stiff neck. Then a strange feeling of being f***ed over came over her: why hadn't I been told at the checkout that the film was going to last three hours? And that this 50% discount ticket was only for the first 2 rows of the cinema?
Defeated, Laura sees the only store still lit up: the pharmacy “CATCH A BREAK”. Feeling welcomed by the poster “MORE CONVENIENCE FOR YOU”, Laura enters, determined to buy only a muscle relaxant. All this dedicated intern wanted at that moment was to go home and forget about the discomfort in her body.
Almost. Upon reaching the checkout, Laura noticed a TAKE 3 PAY 2 promotion for a brand of toothpaste — which would normally be too expensive for her financial context. Again, Laura was faced with a great chance! And that it could even — check this out — make up for the stiff neck and the inconvenience of having already missed the last bus home.
Satisfied with her shopping, Laura leaves the pharmacy. In a lapse of curiosity while waiting for an UBER, she gets closer to the movie poster. It said there, in a millimeter-sized letters, that the discount, in fact, included "only the first two rows, from Monday to Thursday."
I shouldn’t have to read the fine print, she thinks, now much more irritated.
As if the night wasn't already lost, Laura realizes, as she enters the house, that the expiration date for the toothpaste of that promotion is very close. In practice, it would hardly be enough for a single person to consume so much toothpaste in such a short time!
That night, Laura went to bed exhausted. She felt cheated by the promotion TUESDAY-FILM; by the pharmacy CATCH A BREAK; by the brand of toothpaste with ACTIVATED CARBON; and by the girl at the CINEPLUS-TEX-MAX ticket office. Indecisive about who was the ideal target of her frustration and too lazy to sue everything and everyone, she mentally blamed “the system”. And slept.
She was so tired, Laura didn't realize it, but she ended up spending twice as much on an App car, muscle relaxant and 3 semi-useless toothpastes than she would have spent if she had paid for them at her own time and moment, a conventional movie ticket for a movie of her taste — and still back in time for the last bus home, at the outskirts of town.
Indulgence Science And Consumption
That our minds are manipulated so that we need to meet our needs through consumption, in the name of so-called convenience, many already know.
Like Laura, we also arrive exhausted from the supermarket, the mall, the airport and we don't quite know why. However, the system responsible for this — and which Laura labeled invisible — is not that untouchable. In fact, it disguises itself very well, but it's not perfect. Its clues are everywhere. But, to the common eye, they emerge not as clues, but as lures, to attract and distract us from what is really at stake: our attention, our triggers and our pockets.
The domain of this triad is disputed by the slap between the major players on the globalized board of capitalism. We are all mapped on it as consumers.
Among the various known Design methods to reach this mind-map, an approach that is closely aligned with the corporate world is called Design Thinking. According to the University of São Paulo Innovation Agency:
Source: SEBRAE
“Design Thinking is a methodology for developing products and services focused on the needs, desires and limitations of users. The main objective of Design Thinking is to convert difficulties and limitations into benefits for the client and business value of your company.”
A typical Design Thinking project is structured in phases, varying according to the vision of each company. Generally speaking, a “real” problem of a group of people is first identified and, around this challenge, the needs, expectations, desires and frustrations of the target group and the context in question are analyzed. Interdisciplinary teams then generate ideas for meeting these needs through a “solution” — typically a new product or service.
The solution to be implemented is the one that reaches the highest levels in three categories: feasibility, possibility and desire — considered fundamental by the market to generate innovation. The first ones assess the technical feasibility (capacity to execute what is proposed) and financial (checks if the idea contributes to a “sustainable business model” — in business jargon) relating to the internal aspects of the company. While the “desire” examines whether the solution generates real value for the user, in addition to engagement with the brand or service.
Finally, the solution is “activated” at the contact points between the consumer and the brand (they can be physical, such as supermarkets or billboards; or digital, such as Instagram and Amazon).
When applied correctly, Design Thinking can deliver assertive solutions, usually with gains in innovation and cost reduction. This competitive advantage consequently turns into profit, as the company not only manages to sell more, but also to increase its base of new customers.
However, as the capitalist notion of “progress” presupposes “the maximization of profit in a minimum space of time” (as Forbes teaches us), companies were quick to realize that in order to achieve “socially unspeakable” objectives, it was necessary invest in more sophisticated adherence narratives — even more in the face of the current economic crisis and an increasingly well-informed public.
This is where the great campaigns involving Marketing and Design come in, which act directly to increase the attractiveness of the points of contact with the customer, and are based on the premise of “entering the consumer's life and seeking to dictate future behavior and needs”.
It is precisely at the points of contact that some of the interesting contradictions of this system can be seen.
WHY ARE WE GETTING BACK FROM THE SUPERMARKET EXHAUSTED?
Because to buy what you don't need, you need a whole convincing apparatus. And this overloads our brain, causing tiredness and stress.
Most supermarkets are designed to attract your attention at every aisle: more expensive products are at eye level (less cognitive effort to find them), while promotions of up to a certain value are strategically close to the checkout. This encourages the consumption of indulgence (the famous 'I deserve it'): that chocolate that many consumers blame themselves for later, and, as they are not expensive products, they go back to making the purchase as soon as the trigger is reactivated — in addition to a series of other tricks scattered around for you to meet emotional needs through the consumption of goods.
Now remember your last trip to a big supermarket. At the entrance there were probably nice posters announcing “Offers for the lowest price and the best quality” and “A complete experience”. For whom?
From a consumer’s perspective, it's really hard to relax when you arrive on a tight budget in a space full of visual stimuli, where everything around you sparkles, competes with each other and is for sale.
Another old trick that harms our shopping experience is the infamous price format: “R$4.99” ; "R$ 3.48". Well, if it is so well known that "consumers want to save" and, if supermarkets want "the most complete experience” for us, as the advertising at the entrance promises, why don't they present prices to consumers in rounded form, facilitating calculations that are practical for millions of people? The need to know how much is being spent while filling the cart is a demand known by a good portion of consumers.
From a Design Thinking point of view, rounding up prices would be a low-cost, high-impact solution, as it would address real consumer problems and limitations.
WHY THEN has THIS BARRIER Been IMPOSED ON CONSUMERS FOR YEARS?
From the point of view of capitalism, even simple and low cost implementation of ideas, and therefore promising in the "desire" and "possibility" categories such as this one, tend to be discarded if they directly compete with the company's profit margin, still that on the basis of the penny. The justification usually presented is that the idea “does not generate business value”, that is, it fails in the “feasibility” category and doesn’t go forward.
Between risking consumers spending less time in the store and saving more money (meeting their real need), many establishments prefer to infest their stores with offers and coupons (triggers associated with urgency or exclusivity), intensifying the feeling of anxiety in people, making them, therefore, more likely to want to compensate for this emotional imbalance through instant-solutions offered by the establishment, such as sweets or ice cream (hence the name, 'compensation consumption'). Note that these products are traditionally positioned near supermarket exits, next to the cashier.
In capitalist coherence, sales strategies that act directly on the exploitation of our subjective repertoire tend to be considered more effective by managers, than those which generate more autonomy for the consumer.
WHEN KNOWLEDGE ABOUT YOU IS APPLIED AGAINST YOUR NEEDS
Millions of passengers from all over the world, when they “visit” the Duty-Free shopping malls located in major international airports, upon disembarking, they are forced to travel along winding corridors full of M&M's and whiskey, like cattle that need to be directed along a specific route.
It is observed in the passengers the typical tiredness of long flights, stopovers and immigration lines, parents with dark circles under their eyes and irritated children, crying. Common sensations in these environments are tiredness, sleepiness, anxiety, homesickness.
According to the article "Understand the concept of design thinking and how to apply it to business", which considers empathy one of the foundations of good design, we learned that:
“Empathy means putting yourself in the other's shoes to better understand their feelings, behavior and desires. With this, it is possible to translate observations into insights that can improve people's lives.”
Despite this, meeting a visible passenger need with the insight to shorten the distance to the exit — offering an alternative route for those who prefer to avoid duty-free shopping, or just want to hug their grandmother — seems to not be an option. Did airports lack empathy or interest?
The decision is at least curious and "coherent" with this finding on the consumption of indulgences made by a survey by UFRGS — Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul:
"Consolation and reward are the two main motivators for buying and consuming small indulgences, as well as emotions such as anxiety and neediness."
I wonder if there wasn't an imposing mall between arrivals, but the affection of someone waiting for you outside, maybe the child's crying could be compensated with the warmth of a grandmother's lap. And the promotional whiskey with a good reunion kiss with a loved one.
DOES DESIGN SERVE CAPITALISM MORE THAN SOCIETY?
Under capitalism, unforeseen events and contingencies do not match with productivity targets or annual planning, and therefore, they are carefully avoided. For many partners and CEOs, the more predictable the future and our buying preferences, the more assured their profits will be.
However, as the future has been increasingly risky and uncertain, many companies end up clinging to the continuous effort to conquer our subjectivities in the here-and-now to ensure the future and revenue they desire. And, preferably, without the need to hurriedly convene Crisis Committees or new consumer researches.
With the map of our habits and preferences in hand, companies try to leverage their markets and mitigate any losses caused by management errors or economic crises. Therefore, capitalism wins whenever we behave as predicted by its sales strategies.
On the other hand, nowadays, it is easier to resist more literal advertisements, such as “Buy Lipstick”, because the accessibility achieved with the internet has revolutionized the way we relate to brands. At the same time, the advancement of science and technology has allowed the elaboration of increasingly sophisticated and less naive strategies — many of them directly exploring our unconscious. When our emotional triggers are set off at opportune times, we gain the “magical ability” to instantly turn stress into pleasure through the purchase of merchandise (a travel package, a microwave, a new shoe).
Constant exposure to the idea that commodities generate pleasure tends to make us addicted, not only to the products in question, but also to money — forcing on society the perception that if we also become capital accumulators, we can buy the pleasures of life.
However, what makes us oblivious to fuller experiences is the fact that capitalism has positioned itself in our culture as the main mediator between our needs and its possibilities for fulfillment.
This system also has a double role, as it acts as a kind of wild card: at the same time that it promises a solution, it is also the cause or intensifier of the problem. This vicious circle is not always noticeable and it closes without us having much way out: we live submerged in a materialistic culture, where most people are drowning in debt, professionally dissatisfied or exploited (when not all three together), because a good part of our sense of status and progress, as well as our many daily decisions, directly serves the accumulation of capital by a company.
POSSIBLE FUTURES
Many of these persuasive and symbolic discourse strategies are known and widely studied. If we become aware of the mechanisms that operate our purchasing decisions, we can review the way in which we suppress, for example, negative emotions such as anxiety, frustration and fear.
Furthermore, we are culturally socialized to avoid talking about our needs or expressing feelings. The absence of a culture that values affection and embraces vulnerability ends up influencing our behavior in an individualistic and materialistic direction, compensating for our survival instinct.
In this environment, which is more competitive than collaborative, individuals tend to blame themselves for their own condition of emotional instability and professional dissatisfaction (capitalism is made invisible once again) and will not be able to, with their money (remember, it’s a lot about this), make better choices in line with their real values and needs.
The difficulty in breaking free from this unnecessary consumption cycle has social and economic roots. On the one hand, a large part of the consumer class is unaware of its strength, its rights and the imperceptible sales mechanisms; on the other hand, creative professionals from different segments witness the promises, but rarely the social impact achievements foreseen by the companies.
Furthermore, in an extremely unequal country like Brazil, a good part of the benefits obtained from the production of science and knowledge are restricted to the most privileged social circles or are limited to favoring the agenda of the private sector, which often finances it.
However, the interest in social impact and sustainability in the corporate debate has been renewed with the awareness and new demands of consumers. Otherwise, one has the feeling that contributing anything to society will only be done if it brings some competitive advantage to the “health” of the business, such as visibility or customer loyalty.
To demonstrate our collective power as payers, it is enough to remember the disruptions and fluctuations in sales in various segments — such as tourism, retail, transport and food — that we, consumers, “caused” in the market at the beginning of the pandemic. Although for reasons of force majeure, when we behaved differently from what was predicted by sales strategies, the power of transformation in a society's consumer culture became clear (here is a tip).
Naturally, the consumption of food, clothing and utensils is necessary for our survival. This isn’t about not buying an outfit that made you feel attractive or a more comfortable bed, but understanding what stimuli (triggers) make you feel attractive through it. So the next time you identify a need in yourself, consciously assess whether it really deserves to be met by purchasing a product.
Another trap: when hearing the phrase "the customer is always right" many people are delighted, as they feel welcomed and empowered, internalizing a false association between money and respect. Remember that capitalism needs to rely on a good dose of low self-esteem on people in order to more successfully adopt their persuasion strategies, while a consumer who is more sure of his real desires and needs tends to spend less.
At the same time, Design tools and skills are powerful agents of social transformation and management, if they are genuinely at the service of a greater purpose.
Imagine if:
_ the same knowledge applied to the organization of shelves in supermarkets was used to optimize libraries, to signal schools and roads?
_ the persuasive speech, whose objective is to motivate the person to perform a certain action, was used not to convince Laura to buy 3 expired toothpastes, but to mobilize minorities in favor of their rights, or to disprove fake news?
_ the agile methodology, a great ally to Design in the corporate world, was used not to maximize the profit of a few, but to rationalize public transport, aiming to maximize your time out of traffic?
In fact, there are successful cases in which the Design process has contributed to innovative solutions outside privileged circuits, for example, facilitating digital accessibility in remote locations or combating malnutrition in vulnerable regions. However, when comparing the positive actions to the other enterprises of capitalism, the imbalance becomes clear once again. The union of disciplines such as Design, Psychology, Engineering, Medicine, Sociology (and much more) working on real problems could promote social well-being a hell of a lot.
Isabel Elia
Designer with 13+ years of experience working in strategy, branding and UX for organizations, foundations and start-ups worldwide. She focuses on design and society, exploring how the majority of people can benefit from innovation and technology.