Consumer Culture of Low-Income Consumers

Consumer Culture of Low-Income ConsumersLiteraturePaper focus on low-income consumers whose economic resources results in them being unable to obtain the goods and work needed for an sufficient and mixerly acceptable stock of income (Darley and Johnson, 1985, p. 206) in other words, consumers experiencing carnal knowledge meagreness and relative deficiency (Townsend, 1987) in consumer socialization.In todays consumer finish, as the standard of living rises, the gap amidst a survival income and a social enclosure income will continue to enlarge (Bowring, 2000). While economic escalation and consumer culture has raised the standard of living for many, there are also concerns that income gaps between the rich and the poor subscribe widened and variation is deepening. It has been recognized that those living on a low income face consumer disadvantage in the market entrust (Andreasen, 1975) encountering diffe plight exchange restrictions and negative results (Hill and Stephens, 1997).It is being unable to obtain the goods and function needed for a socially suitable standard of living (Darley and Johnson, 1985) gibe to low-income consumers encounter different other market place limitation. imperfect harvest-home openness can be a problem.Smaller variety nurse been partly endorsed to access difficulties in both the forage retailing industry (Cummins and Macintyre, 1999) .Equally, low-income consumers frequently have to be enough with lower quality goods and services, for example, they whitethorn have no choice but to pay for second-hand goods, an option that is roughly always viewed as second best (Williams and Windebank, 2001). Moreover, since the publication of The Poor remuneration More , it has generally been accepted that they suffer price bias in the market place (Chung and Myers, 1999).For low-income customers, such social look are a great deal beyond reach as a large percentage of their funds is tied up with basics such as food and rent ( Alwitt and Donley, 1996). This leads to a generality of lifes experiences .Low-income consumers may practice to a greater extent(prenominal) difficultly in forming helpful relationships outside the instant household (Daly and Leonard, 2002) due to trammel opportunities for socializingIn the case of low income they lose opportunity to arrive benefit of what life has to offer and are cut from what passes as a happy life (Bauman, 2005, p. 38).Low income consumers are frequently unemployed because they have non power of purchasing comfortable goods. Which can satisfy their demands m (Alwitt and Donley, 1996).These could include privateized payment plans that allow consumers control of their own budgeting schema or credit opportunities that are specifically adapted to the needs of low-income consumers (Himlton 2004).This is non amazing that as these consumers are often considered as a conclave with different aspiration who are losing and risky, and not good for market-related inquiry ( Hamilton and Catterall, 2005). muckle spend more part of their income for their basic necessities, life style is not consider. The incomes that households actually receive play a significant role in determining their consumption (Tregarthen and Ritternberg, 2000) such that low-income consumers consume less gratifyingfruits, fresh vegetables, fruit juices, low-fat milk, whole meal bread and fish compare to more economically advantaged consumers (Anderson and Morris, 2000).Low-income consumers can be defined as individuals whose financial resources or income results in them being unable to obtain the goods and services needed for an tolerable and socially acceptable standard of living (Darley and Johnson, 1985 cited in Hamilton and Catterall, 2005).HILL and ADRANG canvas on global scantiness of the united nations contened that the poor are individual and families are some what rich.Lifestyle characteristics of the low-income consumer The incomes that households actually receive play a significant role in determining their consumption (Tregarthen and Ritternberg, 2000).To rely on making incursions into other budgetary allocations and postpone other essentials, such that they root on which item of necessity is less necessary (Matza and Miller, 1976).Most acquire decisions for relatively low-priced products that have close substitutes would be low-involvement. A more detailed view of low-involvement products is proposed by Semenik and Bamossy (1995).It has been suggested that An individual is socially excluded if (a) he or she is geographically resident in a society and (b) he or she does not participate in the normal activities of citizens in that society (Burchardt, 1999, p. 230).The designate of this paper is twofold. First, social policy studies surrounding social excommunication in terms of separation from mainstream society have focused on employment, often neglecting theorizing about the specific forms of social exclusion that can be associ ated with consumerism (Williams and Windebank, 2002 Hohnen, 2007). overbearing discourse heralds the benefits of a consumer society suggesting that choice can be seen as the consumers friend (Gabriel and Lang, 2006, p. 1)Marketing techniques are often critiqued for creating a steady social pressure to consume, leading to feelings of exclusion and shame for those consumers who cannot make their desires a reality (Bowring, 2000).Fullerton and Punj (1997) also suggest that as well as stimulant legitimate consumption behavior, the consumer culture can stimulate consumer misbehavior. Previous research suggests that the poor may be particularly prone to consumer misbehavior as their financial resources may not be sufficient tosatisfy desires.Equally, low-income consumers often have to suffice with lower quality goods and services, for example, they may have no choice but to purchase second-hand goods, an option that is almost always viewed as second best (Williams and Winde bank, 2001).T he British kindly Attitudes Report (National Centre for Social enquiry, 2008) highlights that a rising number of people place the blame for poverty on the poor themselves some 27 per cent think that poverty is due to laziness or lack of willpower, up from 19 per cent in1984.ReferencesDarley,W.K. and Johnson, D.M. (1985), A contemporary analysis of the low income consumer aninternational posture, in Tan, C.T. and Sheth, J.N. (Eds), Historical Perspectives inConsumer Research National and International Perspectives, Association for ConsumerResearch, Provo, UT, pp. 206-10.Townsend, P. (1987), red ink, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16 none 2, pp. 125-46.Bowring, F. (2000), Social exclusion limitations of the view, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 20 no. 3, pp. 307-30.Andreasen, A.R. (1975), The Disadvantaged Consumer, The Free Press, bare-ass York, NY.Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005), Consumer culture theory (CCT) twenty years of research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 1 no(prenominal) 4, pp. 868-82. research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-82.Hill, R.P. and Stephens, D.L. (1997), Impoverished consumers and consumer behavior the case ofAFDC mothers, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 32-48.Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (1999), The location of food stores in urban areas a case study in Glasgow, British pabulum Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 545-53.Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2001), Acquiring goods and services in lower income populations an military rating of consumer behaviour and preferences, International Journal Of sell Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-24.Chung, C. and Myers, S.L. (1999), Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of food product store availability and food price disparities, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 276-96.Alwitt, L.F. and Donley, T.D. (1996), The Low-income Consumer, Adjusting the Balance of Exchange, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Hamilton, C. (2004), Growth Fetish, Pluto Press, LondonHamilton, K. and Catterall, M. (2005), Towards a offend understanding of the low-income consumer, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 627-32.Tregarthen, T. and Ritternberg, L. (2000), Economics, 2nd ed., Worth, New York, NY.Anderson, A.S. and Morris, S.E. (2000), Changing fortunes changing food choices, Nutrition Food Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 12-15.Matza, D. and Miller, H. (1976), Poverty and proletariat, in Merton, R.K. and Nisbet, R. (Eds),Contemporary Social Problems, 4th ed.,Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,NewYork,NY, pp. 641-73.Semenik, R.J. and Bamossy, G.J. (1995), Principles of Marketing, 2nd ed., South Western College, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 170-1.Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J. and Piachaud, D. (1999), Social exclusion in Britain 1991-1995, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 227-44.Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2002), The excluded consumer a neglected aspect of social exclusion?, Policy Politics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 501-13.Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (2006), The Unmanageable Consumer Contemporary Consumption and its Fragmentation, 2nd ed., Sage, London.Bowring, F. (2000), Social exclusion limitations of the debate, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 307-30.Fullerton, R.A. and Punj, G. (1997), The unintended consequences of the culture of consumptionan historical-theoretical analysis of consumer misbehavior, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 393-423.Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2001), Acquiring goods and services in lower incomepopulations an evaluation of consumer behaviour and preferences, International Journal of Retail Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-24.National Centre for Social Research (2008), British Social Attitudes, The 24th Report, Sage, London.