Harvard Business Publishing

Agreed, "simplifying" requires a vastly different approach for marketers used to selling stuff. Perhaps the greater opportunity is not in convincing them to buy or display things or experiences, but rather to help them do it.

There's a short-term opportunity in the shifts people make (e.g. How will they simplify? How will they sell? Who will they sell to?).

There's also the long-term opportunity to help people experience life very differently. Studies of the wealthy and happy have always indicated proportionately larger spending on time and experiences with family, people and their support network. That's the real opportunity.

Agreed as well. A remark on this would be looking at what marketers do in Northern European markets, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Holland. These markets are well composed by what you called 'the simplifier' as a cultural attribute, and indeed in these markets you have a whole portfolio of quality brands and outdoor experiences.

It's about time.

The book by Harvard grad Ciji Ware on Rightsizing reflects part of that trend

But doesn't this always happen to those who are retiring? Why is this a trend just because the baby-boomers are doing it?

I would like to see more proof of other generations following (or starting) this purchasing style (for more reasons than they can no longer afford it.) before we call it a national purchasing trend.

This describes my wife down to a tee, other than the fact that she has always approached life from this perspective. Interesting that other people are "coming back" to this, what I consider, to be a more traditional approach to "consuming" life.

New approach or just full/part circle? I don't think this is just the retired as a marketing demographic, this is the 40+ gang and maybe increasingly the 30+?

This is an opportunity (and an imperative!) for small business to better target their marketing of specialist consumption to their niche market. More opportunities! Not sure what this means for the comsumer goods multi-nationals in an increasingly greener climate change focused market. What do we think the middle class in India, China, Africa and the developing worlds want?!

I agree that the short term effect in developed countries is likely lower demand for consumables, but with the increased focus on philanthropy and especially focusing on lesser developed nations, shouldn't there be an increase of "responsible" spending, or at least marketing focusing on responsibility or philanthropy, such as the Tesla Roadster, organic foods, the RED campaign, or $100 laptops?

John, so right! You reminded me of a cartoon in the New Yorker a number of years ago. I'm not sure they were Simplifiers, but a group of (typical New York) people were talking around a bar, with the caption saying, "We were into things, but now we're into experiences."

This is a trend that I have seen taking place in South Africa. I sell property and all the huge mansions complete with tennis courts, mega swimming pools and acres of manicured gardens are just sitting. Granted we are in a market slump but this trend was taking place before that. No one wants or needs these cumbersome properties anymore. The trend to having a second home is also drying up. Interesting how market trends impact across the world.

Sounds like an assumption rather than based on fact. Perhaps because Canada is weathering the financial storm better than the US I am not seeing this trend. We also see a large number of new immigrants from India, China etc. and they are a part of that growing middle class so I would be hesitant to change my marketing strategy just yet.

I think this is so true. I am at the tail end of the baby boomers and have noticed an increasing trend with people my age to get rid of their "stuff". Granted, we are nearing retirement age, but our children seem much less possession-driven than we were at their age, and mine kids have made it clear that they do not want or need the clutter that I have accumulated.

It could also be just maturity setting in - that you don't need "things" to define you. You define yourself by your words and actions.

Yeah, I need to DownSize my self.

Simplifier is not new to India. Size of middle class in Urban India has grown and few need to downsize. Rural India is still sticking to basics. Luxury is a product of abundance, downsizing is correction.

Money for Nothing!

Markets, consumption and luxury. Recession could be a good chance to come back to the roots of human values. Many people have realized that at the end the have nothing different than their deposits in a bank, and the tangible assets, and it's all a part of a financial bubble.

Let's make this reflection an start managing our companies and our lives in the right direction, otherwise we'll be soon in 'dire straits'

John Quelch
It is the best picture you have given very open to state we have the recession as I see in the TV 0.3% as is. The jobs are the biggest income makers and if these are laid out then after 1929 and 1987 we have the reduced employees and less tax colections. Less of everything if you want to say. Employement create the lube of the economy. Static workforce does nothing burt bankcruptcy.
That is what we are facing at the moment.
Less of everything.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

it's high time we start living real, recession will restore the sense of value.

I have been a "Simplifier" for years now. (34, F) The "stuff" that I buy has to serve multiple purposes and I only upgrade to do more with less and with less space. Although I can afford "better" I have live in a studio apartment and shop at Goodwill in the spirit of recycling. I take pride in the fact that I only have one TV, my laptop doubles as my stereo, phone, and DVD player. I wouldn't be caught dead in a Wal-Mart.
If you want to know where I will never stop spending my extra money - moderately priced, good quality clothes that make me look skinny.

i love the way you have categorized their characteristics. The
need for experiences that are unique is very interesting.It speaks to the fact that although people are cutting back they want
to spend more quality time with family and 'experience' things
together. Thus I do believe unique travel will continue to grow and
offer not just the boomers but the younger genX,Y and millenials a
warm feeling of unity that they will treasure.

Perhaps, the "marketers" of social enterprises could approach this group to get them involved in creating better communities through participation in the enterprise activities - this group has, as the article aptly describes, wealth and experince. And they now want quality experience over more material accumulation.

this is a social issue along with desires for food and drink, entertainment, drug and medicine, recreation activities etc. U.S. as a whole has been a test ground for materialism to the extreme. Now is a good time to rethink simplicity and to better echo with nature eco-system which we have been devoured in the past two decades.

These are both logical and emotional thoughts. Consumer attitudes and spending cycles/patterns will change especially when employment is uncertain and/or jeopardised.

Right sizing and simpliers are fantastic. I am 30, living in NYC and seeing precursors of this in my community. Business nomads seeking connecting experiences rather than products.

Web / technology in general is enabling us to "remember" the details of our lives / experiences through images, postings, and communication in ways that we never have before. We are creating virtual artifacts and cultural currency through activity. I like the term "life caching" for this.

We have already begun measuring our experiences through connecting nodes on interfaces such as Facebook, Myspace and Yelp rather than the traditional goods displayed in our homes or on our wrists.

A great example of a bleeding edge experience monitoring interface is Jonathan Harris's www.wefeelfine.org which begins to provide multiple ways to engage the information around the statement "I feel..."

It is interesting that most discussions in marketing circles still center on the changing needs of "overserved segments"--merely one-tenth of humanity.

When the very construct of "unregulated capitalism" is being questioned,is it not time that the marketing discipline re-visit its very value proposition and adopt an "inclusive approach" whereby the "underserved segments" become the primary target segment.

Have we not pampered the "overserved segments" with too many line extensions and brand extensions?

Over the years "unmet need" as defined in classical marketing appears to have metastized to "unmet desire"----and in the process mainstream marketing became irrelevant to nine-tenth of humanity.

One wonders if by "inaction" or by pursuing a "one-eyed approach" did marketing discipline also contribute to the global financial crisis.

A trend that will really adds impact to simplification is the recycling/freecycling movement made trendy by environmental consciousness and even Hollywood but driven by consumer fears in the economy.

As consumers have been bombarded by messages that they had been contributing to global warming and encouraged to recycle paper and other goods, they have begun to take the next logical step and recycle their consumer and household goods. Channels such as the planetgreen have been showing how to recycle almost everything in a home and a segment of the normally conspicuous consumption crowd, Hollywood stars that want to appear hip, are showing how green they are by buying products made from recycled materials.

Thrift shops, used furniture stores, estate sales, and garage sales have been around for years but the amount of goods and people that pass through them must be seen to be understood. Goodwill alone moves more than a billion in merchandise--most of it at five to twenty cents on the dollar of what it would cost new--so the merchandise volume is equivalent to chains doing five to twenty times as much in dollar terms. Not just the poor shop there--there are a surprising number of luxury vehicles in the parking lots--persons who still want to consume but find they can do it for less than wholesale, less than cost prices.

We live in one of the wealthiest counties in the US and we see people filling their large homes with goods off craigslist and freecycle. And we see them shopping the yard sales of those cutting back. In part, it is because they are overleveraged and have less disposable income after paying their mortgages, but those who remember the sixties and seventies (the baby-boomers Mr. Welch mentions), the early environmental consciousness and back to the earth movements, find it an easy shift to these new systems. I can have all the stuff I want while making little or no carbon footprint by picking up goods locally that have already been produced. Oh, yes, and I can do it for a tenth of what it would cost me to buy it from a retail store.

My wife, an interior designer, does this all the time. She has filled our home with unique and well-made items for little or nothing as she picks them up off craigslist, freecycle, and these other channels and then recycles those she doesn't want back into these networks. When people ask where she got such and such an item, she tells them and another person joins the group of people doing this.

So not only are people simplifying, some of those highly desireable consumers (as measured by the demographics) are not buying from the traditional stores. Rather, they are recycling or freecycling the vast amounts of goods already sitting out in the market and gaining cachet for doing so.

As the economy begins to impact incomes even more, look for this trend to really hit the retail markets.

Parallel trends are also taking place on the sales side of these equations. Buyers want to have a relationship with sellers and even the products themselves. The old "Features and benefits" approach to selling is losing steam.

In its place comes a "Co-Conspirator" model, where people align their overall goals with each other -- not just the need to consumate a transaction. Web 2.0 and the interaction it brings makes alignment across space and time much easier. Those marketers/salespeople who can build that broad alignment will reap the largest rewards.

As you say, customers want to accumulate "experiences, not possessions."

Kaye Thayer's comment (Oct. 24) is very astute and probably very accurate. As people proceed through the life cycle and mature they complete their acquisition of material possessions and then naturally turn to being consumers of experiences. I have not seen any research indicating younger people are doing this in any great numbers (unless they are being forced to consume less by economic conditions).

As for the affluent, the research of Professor Thomas Stanley (author of The Millionaire Next Door and related books) and The American Affluence Research Center shows that the affluent are conservative consumers and good savers.

Based on the above, I question whether Professor Quelch has actually identified any substantial new trends.

Ron Kurtz
HBS, MBA '67

David Smith's posting matches my thoughts closely. Beyond the many benefits he accurately represents of a recycled/repurposed lifestyle, there is the added benefit that it is actually fun to "hunt" thru these unconventional sources to find that unique item needing a new home. Yes, we can all do with much less, but living more lightly can also come by extending the lifecycle of things rather than just buying new disposable products.
While finding a different way to satisfy our need for stuff is beneficial in its own right, the ultimate benefit of the simplicity lifestyle is having more time. If we are not working more hours to get money to buy more stuff and then working more time to house and maintain the stuff, we will reap the ultimate reward of time. If we spend it on pursuit of a lifetime interest, charitable/political/community/social efforts, quality family time, travel or just doing nothing(some of us even call it meditation), the new ultimate luxury may well be having time in what has become an overcommitted, stressed and pressured world.

I think 'stabilizing' is the right word. If they can afford it, most people will keep their homes and automobiles purchased during the "Age of Consumption." My Wife and I are not looking to 'downsize' but we are also not looking to 'upsize' our lives either. (At least during this period of economic uncertainty) Marketers and companies need to look into helping consumers 'maintain' their quality of living without adding expenses.

There will undoubtedly be broad implications caused by multinationals shifting their focus on developing consumerism abroad instead of in the US market. If you transcribe the product lifecycle onto broader geographic markets then one can make the argument that the US is at the end of the cycle, which will leave multinationals with the decision to either reinvest into the US in hopes of keeping the bread and butter of their market mix or to divest in the US and put more emphasis in developing growth economies into a major segment. Each of these two paths have profoundly different geopolitical implications.

More specifically, a divesture in the US economy will cause a need for multinationals to seek stronger political influence abroad. The current multinational power elites may need alternate refuge besides the previous mode of US diplomatic introvention, IMF and World Bank market liberalization efforts.

Should reinvesting be the preffered path then the question of refuling growth in consumerism is indeed a difficult one to answer given that Americans have very few piggy banks to dig into given the collaps of real estate, pension funds, personal savings and credit markets. Marketers in this case must get back to focusing on real tangible benefits. Branding should decline in importance along with other intangibles. This should also mean that future marketing efforts will have a greater impact on production costs.

I personally believe that multinationals are better off moving their efforts to another country and divesting in the US. The reorganization efforts may give them a new political avenue to follow. They have tapped the US citizenry out, maybe it's time to go tap someone else out instead of trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

The ultimate experience for a simplifier is changing the world for your descendants.

As the simplifier grows older, lives longer and is healthy, then the idea that he/she has the time to change the world becomes realisable.

Time, money, connections to other simplifiers and many more simplifiers than ever in history.

The article strikes a chord. So many of us have been living this way for years - indeed, all our lives (especially if you were a child in Europe immediately after World War II). But the big question is how many will follow this different course? The recession will increase the number, but perhaps only temporarily.

If the trend does catch on then what are the implications:

1. Big consumer goods companies will probably need to find new markets for their traditional products in developing countries.

2. Traditional consumer goods may become simpler and much more durable (which is better for the planet too!), requiring less servicing and attention.

3. There may be a demand for more of certain goods relating to the new life style eg gardening tools and equipment as more people choose the enjoyable and satisfying experience of growing their own vegetables and flowers.

I'm sure there are lots more!

Prof. Quelch scores a sixer once again. The auto sales numbers strongly support the premise put forth. However I wonder how much fear and temporary loss of confidence are at play? The American consumer is not able to be frugal for long!

As a sales manager in Turkey, I would say that to be a simplifier requires many things some of which includes wealth, education and a certain level of consciousness.

Developing countries are still in the earlier stages of modern product life-cycles, so stuff is still king in countries like Turkey. Business strategists will definitely take this into consideration.

In the new economy with everything changing at an incredible pace, we should have a different set of criteria. In the light of Professor Quelch's Economist article "Too Much Stuff”, the marketer of tomorrow will have to be much more creative and innovative than before as the simplifiers are buying what can not be seen easily rather than something that can easily be valued after the first glance.

Experience is all that matters when a product is not just the physical thing any more. The most conspicuous criterion for a simplifier is the capacity to be able to see the hidden value in something.

To sell or market a product will be harder than ever in the years to come.

As for simplifiers, I wonder how they are talking about their experiences in their circles. That is because people need to show what they have to others. It can be wealth, any status symbol or something else.
If their wealth is their experience ; simplifiers may be speaking about their experiences instead of showing off what they physically have. And I believe they do speak a lot explaining where they visited and what kind of adventures they experienced. As far as I can see, nothing changes much in this context.

This new brand of consumers reminds me of the Law of "Diminishing Marginal Utility" in Economics. As a person increases consumption of a product - while keeping consumption of other products constant - there is a decline in the marginal utility that person derives from consuming each additional unit of that product.
Each person and market segment is unique. So intellectual middle-aged people who reached a point of saturation, now called simplifiers, simply will not get the same utility that they used to get in the 1990s.
In the light of the new economy, they have a brand new perspective and marketers should understand this.

"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always run to simplicity."

Bruce Lee

I firmly believe that alot of people still behave like this . Last week I watched Oprah’s Show and the subject was same. In the show a woman was crying. Her house has been fulled a lot of stuff until she couldn’t live in it. While the official was chucking out and she was crying, She said that this made her happier.
If this article was signed by a Turkish lecturer. It would’nt lose any meaning.
I witnessed the economic boom since 1980 . We used to live in a small flatt and generally go to job or school by bus. When the numbers of TV channels increased then the people realised how the rich people lived. So our perception started to change and we felt bad ourselves. That is because We thought the stuff would make us happier . When we have earned more money we moved to bigger flats or the big houses. We had two or three TV and the cars. Although the people lived in a city they wanted to buy a jeep or luxury one as gas-guzzler. Our happiness depends on shopping. Due to this, we fill our houses, attics and basements with more stuff than we need. Now a lot of people are pack rats.
We had experience of financial meltdown in 1999, before americans and europeans. So, Some of us have realized that the consumption won’t make us feel better. Stuff make us irresponsible and tie us down. I think everybody has to learn that. Because Natural resources are decreasing day by day, we need water, air and electrics consumption more than stuff. I hope as the new consumer segment grows more simplifiers pressure increase on the manufacturer and market to find new channel earning money instead of finding an emerging market where stuff will be king. So unnecessary consumption may be stopped.

Provocative article, which has encouraged this cynical simplified person to respond. My car is old, so the bad news continues for the big three manufacturers. You do not make Alfas anyway.. My apartment is small, my life is uncluttered. However, I eat out a lot now, in really good restaurants. I have to eat, so why not enjoy eating. I buy less wine, but the experience of poor wine is not worth the hair shirt. I walk a lot, which means I buy and keep really nice shoes. I still take pleasure in well made things, because they will last. I like to go to concerts, and see ageing rockers, but I am not really interested in downloading, I prefer the real thing. So I am stil consuming, but not the electronic nonsense. As with all things, sell what I want not what you have.

Quelch's observations align with my experiences - but the why is different.

In 2003 I moved back to my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama. I took my daughter house-hunting and we both were amazed at the transformation of the city and the suburbs. McMansions lined former pastures and friends who had lived in small, modest homes invited us to dinner in 4,500 SF houses with granite and stainless steel everywhere. As we looked at houses my daughter shared a quick quote with me as we looked up and down the rows of huge houses and 3-4 SUVs in the driveways - often driven by our friend's teens who just used them for going to and from school.

"A surfeit of treasures where one is enough." she said.

I have watched numerous friends and associates accumulate property and goods but not on a quest for prestige or social acceptance - more a search to re-create past experiences of "family", "community", and "fellowship".

They remember parents with lots of friends who came by for dinners, drinks, and board games or cards. They remember having lots of friends who came over to play and spend the night. They remember a dog by a fire and a cat curled on a chair. A family squeezed into a huge station wagon heading to an amusement park or grandma's house. People together.

And somehow they convinced themselves that a huge house with XBOX, WIIs and media rooms would act like a beacon and make their home the place where everyone came - it didn't.

The right stuff and the right look would mean they were part of something (not just country clubs) perhaps a group they desired to join or in which to participate - it didn't.

A big car would support a big family and pile everyone in for vacations or practices - it didn't; everyone drove their own car.

A big kitchen with all the bells would mean big, home cooked meals - everyone around the table - but nobody cooked and nobody home at the same time to eat it if you did.

A lake home would be like "On Golden Pond" or the pictures of the Kennedy clan - but the kids are busy.

One friend of ours built a huge home because she told us she wanted to have room for friends and family to spread out and have fun, meet for Bible studies. But her spouse (and now her)work so hard to pay for it, she is never there. They have been through five dogs and three kittens.

The house was foreclosed on this week.

Jeff and I live modestly, we almost moved to a huge house, but decided at the last minute to decline. Thank goodness.

In the 80's I was an intern with family services and I asked a social worker why so many of the poor that we visited had numerous dogs and cats. How can they afford them? She told me that low-income people were often the ones who rescued or adopted animals. Not because poor people are irresponsible. Why? Because they see ads and commercials with the perfect family pictured - and there is always a small child and a dog or cat right by the fire. It signifies home and hearth - love. They are trying to create "family".

I have never forgotten that idea.

So, I think the big house and the lake or beach house is like a blank canvas and people are trying to paint that Rockwell family scene right into it with all that stuff that they think will bring closeness or gatherings or fellowship - "family" "friends" "community".

I think that is what we were trying to create again.

I truly believe that "simplicity is the new abundance". This can be seen in nutrition and dining (less is more, higher quality, slow food, organic), exercise ("slow and with more awareness", yoga with awareness, Feldenkrais Method(R)of somatic education), and many other aspects. And I do agree that it is about time :-)

A word of caution to marketeers assuming the developing world is the next target market for consumer durables: There is a significant proportion of the educated middle class in India that has moved directly from a socialist economy to post-consumerism, without the (assumed-to-be-mandatory) intermediate step of no holds barred purchase-hedonism. Also as the Arctic caps melt, the moral pressure to reduce environmental footprint will be so intense, the unstated need behind purchases ("keeping up with the neighbours", for example) will change to "saving the planet" - which guess what, is cheaper and makes you feel better too!

I was amused at reading your recent Working Knowledge article titled 'Selling to Simplifier'. I thought I was a social and financial anomaly: I did not realize that I was part of a segment large enough that those on the cusp of advanced research had already identified.

I am impressed by your accuracy: my wife looked at it together and its as if you have described us to every detail. In fact when we first got married 5 years ago and moved together, she laughed at my extreme quasi-National Park like policy. For everything I bought, I had to get rid of something equivalent (like when you go camping, you take out what you bring in). This applied to just about everything that we could dominate, with one major exception. I realized early in the marriage (wisely so), that as a newly married man, I should not extend this rule to my wife's shoes.

We also recycle obsessively: more of our items go into recycling than trash.

I enjoyed reading it, and keep up the great research. No doubt the consumer goods industry will find that the recession has accelerated the number of simplifiers that have become so not by choice but by economic necessity.

The majority of forced simplifiers may be here to stay. I haven't lived through (professionally at least) through a previous recession (dot com bubble being the exception). I have to assume there were previous similar instances where we got hit by a crises, but then soon forgot (oil shock of 73, and then 25 years later driving big massive vehicles again). So if past history is any indication, its easy to fall into that trap. But there are some nuances to this situation:

1. Individuals realize they don't have savings. US households were saving before. Over the last 10 years savings has been zero and in fact household debt has shot up.
2. Individuals more worried about retirement. The stock market situation is obviously fresh in people's minds. But prior that most recognize the demographic change that will impact future Social Security payee/payor balance (fewer people working to support a large retirement population)
3. Jobs leaving the US now will not come back. Globalization is an overused word, but this would be the first time that we realize that when the US does recover, unless we changed our skillsets, some jobs will never come back.

In summary, I feel people will be forced into this lifestyle for self-preservation and the memory of current events may not be as short-lived.

Products that we buy are no different than the styles we wear. As times change we try to be different and if consumption is the norm, we consume differently. Recycling/carbon credits is going to be a fad till we realize everyone does it, and no more defines me. As a marketer we always need to be ahead of the consumption style, and create products of the market emerging in consumers. Simplifiers will in most cases not mind spending more than they were spending earlier, but it has to be different. It is like minimalism, I pay to have less. Marketers need to find what the less is.