The paradox of choice

I have talked about the anxiety we feel through being overwhelmed by too much choice (see here). The last decade, driven from consumers' needs for instant gratification, on demand services and personalised products, has created a culture of anxiety full of ephemeral relationships with people and brands. Finally the corporate world has woken up and taking a stand against the world of excess.

Wal-Mart in Canada has started to drop the number of product lines it holds on its shelves. Sales of these product lines has not been affected ie. people still buy the product and and are less wedded to the brand than we may think (see here). Duncan Mac Naughton, chief merchandising officer at Wal-Mart in Mississauga says, “Folks can get overwhelmed with too much variety. With too many choices, they actually don’t buy.”

Regardless of the intent, the outcome clearly does not impact the corporate bottom line. What, though, is the impact on the shoppers' experience? Are they grateful for less choice, are they less anxious or do they feel defeated that their preferred brand is not present so they have to go for brand x? The main thing is that the customer is not always right...and it takes someone brave to put that knowledge into action.

So what does this mean? I believe that we have entered a period of reconcilliation, rationalisation and retrenchment to meet basic needs. We are living in a period of personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the corporate world to remove choice to help the psychology of society.

Freedom of speech

"How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is regarded as the Father of Existentialism. In this quote he talks about our lack of self awareness and inability to use what we have to hand - on both practical and profound levels. Interestingly, he talks about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that the democratic Nations laud as a defining feature of their governance. Yet are we not often constrained when faced with disagreement? Politically, in the work place, in all forms of relationship? The internet has helped give a billion people a voice but still we are constrained.

So how can freedom of thought be turned into actionable outcomes that change our surroundings? Do we have a responsibility to notice situations where speaking is not proper then take action in an appropriate way? Should we always mitigate our language and style? Alternatively, should we search for an outlet where we are joined by people with a common understanding, where our speech - the articulation of our thoughts - is acceptable and catalyses progressive thinking?

Sadly, Kierkegaard's edict is all too intrinsic to human nature and the structures that confine acceptable behaviour. But we have a responsibility to ourselves - to take a stance and be consistent to our beliefs. His declaration relates to people oppressed by a situation yet modern idealism teaches us to express ourselves. We therefore have a choice and it seems that it comes down to our desire for freedom. If we remain in our boxes, the air will fester and we will suffocate. If we are brave we will be free but we must be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences thereof. Maybe bravery is absurd. Then sensible is inert.

Can we have too much choice?

A few years old now and we still haven't learned anything... In this video psychologist Barry Schwartz says we have all become so anxious due to the amount of choice we have now. In the old days, there was coffee or tea... Now, well, there's no such thing... Because of this, we have no idea what we want anymore so we become disoriented, frustrated, unsettled, perplexed and, most importantly, anxious. We have a responsibility to make things simple for people. Simplicity leads to understanding whereas complexity leads to confusion.