   We first have to explore the grand orchestrator that made it possible to have such a dizzying catalogue of goods; globalization. The phenomenon of globalization transformed our world to be smaller and more accessible. Products that could once only be purchased at the place of origin, such as silk, are now available in other countries, through trade and exploitation of comparative advantages. The sheer amount of choices that a consumer would face at a typical grocery store is staggering; on average, he will choose between 285 types of cookies, 75 types of ice tea, 230 types of soup and 175 different types of salad dressings. There are several factors that contribute to the fact that consumers  One of the factors leads globalization is free trade agreement between countries. FTA is a good example of how free trade between countries would maximize the choices of products in each country. 41 percent of the U.S. goods produced were exported to FTA partner countries in 2010 at growing rate.(International Trade Administration, 2011) For instance, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) removed the major trade barriers and tariffs between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. This means that consumers in Mexico could easily purchase American goods without paying higher price, which implies that the foreign goods would gain the competitive power over some local goods. Because of this reason, selling foreign goods became more profitable which creates the increase in supply. The mixture of local and imported goods can provide more variety of products in choice. Another facilitator of choice is the wide usage of internet shopping and electronic commerce. E-commerce is one of the fastest growing industries which led the increase in economic and market globalization.(B.2010) Many people purchase products online. It provides discounted prices and convenience in reduction of time. Also, due to innovation of transportation, the internet became a perfect tool for foreign consumers to purchase local goods. This process makes the customers have bigger choices to look over when they attempt to make purchase. Also, changing in life styles can be one of the factors. Different lifestyle leads different demand in products. As nations get closer, different cultures spread like fire. In many Asian cultures, people have adapted a western lifestyle through the influence of media, expatriates, and the market. The change increases the demand of imported goods which would fit in their new lifestyle. Recently in China, consumption of western lifestyle goods is continually growing among high and upper class locals. Many consumers demand western lifestyle products such as organic foods, wine, cheese and similar high-end products. These products were originally designed to target expatriates, but now they are more popular among Chinese customers. To meet the contemporary needs, some stores carry 70-80% imported goods. (Leanne, May, &Tong, 2011) The imported goods add to aisles in supermarket and become one of the choices for the customers. As a product of open-market competition, trade blocs and a shift toward a global standard, globalization has diversified the markets at unprecedented levels, throwing consumers into the tempest of choices. Despite the current misconception that this increase in choices maximizes human welfare, the levels of choice modern day consumers face as a result of globalization actually have an adverse affect on people in a variety of ways. One way in which this occurs is through the form of “consumer paralysis”. This is when the consumer is faced with such an overwhelming amount of choice that they refrain from making any choice at all. This can be a common symptom in areas where consumers are forced to make decisions regarding health insurance and pension plans where there are a large number of variables in decisions that have high influence in a consumer’s everyday life. According to ‘The paradox of choice’ by Barry Schwartz, the creation of more and more choice also reduces customer satisfaction in a number of different ways. The first way is that with the existence of increased choice, it becomes easier for the consumer to imagine that there was probably an alternative choice that may have been better. This enduces them to regret their choice even if it was a good one. Another possible reason for the reduction in post-purchase customer satisfaction can be derived from the concept of ‘opportunity cost’. This makes it easier for the consumer to be nagged by the attractive features of the alternatives they could have chosen. It is human nature to desire and imagine the best possible outcome in a situation. Through the increased choice that globalization creates however, it becomes even easier for the consumers to imagine the things that they are missing out on, which in turn drains the level of satisfaction they walk away from each decision.  Furthermore, choice satisfaction is further diminished by the increase in customer expectations. For example, decades ago when you could only buy one type of jeans, customers would walk away from the store with a pair that might not fit great, but with a smile on their face. Now, with thousands of different types and brands available, a customer can walk into a shop and try lots of styles and walk away with a better fitting pair. Despite this, their customer satisfaction is lower as with so much to choose from they expect to walk away with a perfect fitting pair - when all they got was good. Despite getting a better product, the consumer is less satisfied as a result of the amount of choice available to them. The reason why "everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise" (Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice, 2004) Perhaps the most convincing argument within the paradox of choice lies masked in the theme of blame. For instance, if a consumer makes a poor choice in an environment where there is little choice available, they believe the blame to fall on the world surrounding them, as sufficient choice was not provided. When the consumer makes a poor decision in an environment that provides them with extensive choice however, the consumer blames themselves. This concept of self-blame has an adverse effect on us psychologically and can deteriorate our self esteem and often throw consumers into depression. Whether we chose it or not, globalization has thrown us all into a smaller, more crowded and ever more paradoxical and confusing world. At the swipe of an iPhone, or by simply walking into the town mall, we are hit by a tidal wave of choices that slowly and obscurely overwhelm us. Globalization has very literally shrunk the globe, putting goods, services, cultures, animals, trends and even ideas at our “leisurely” disposal if ever we would choose to have them. The “Silk Road”, having transformed itself into the internet and worldwide trade and logistics, has engulfed the world like a spider web, throwing producers onto the world market to procure an infinite array of choices to satiate our gluttonous consumerism and meet our ever-high expectations. As the entire world as our shopping mall, we as consumers, choose not to settle for anything but the best. As self-proclaimed “global citizens”, we try to make sense of this maelstrom of choice and confusion by convincing ourselves that “this is good, it’s how it’s supposed to be”. We are all entrapped by the central dogma that asserts that more choices leads to more freedom and freedom will make us all happier. … Right? What could be better than having the “freedom” to choose between 342 different kinds of chocolate or 321 brands of shampoo? Probabilistically speaking, more choice means that there is a higher chance that at least one of those choices will be the perfect chocolate bar or shampoo, and everybody knows that good chocolate makes you happy. But ironically, instead of liberation, the thick, daunting catalogue has turned us into the most picky, miserable and materialistic generation in history. Through “Consumer Paralysis”, diminished happiness from our ultimate choices, the nagging thought of opportunity costs foregone from the 1349 other choices you could have made, and just the sheer stress of making decisions after decisions, when the fog clears at the end of the day, it turns out that more is not more, but less. Although we have more options to choose from then ever, we are considerably less happy about the choices that we make as we sit at the tippy top of the “diminishing marginally utility curve”. So what, then, should we do? How should we, as already demanding consumers, deal with the demoralizing truth that the sense of security we felt as we looked at the endless list of foreign brands and choices was actually an illusion? The first step we could take is to realize that not every choice we make needs to be perfect. Buying the wrong type of orange juice will not yield unfortunate and life-long effects. We need to learn to be less demanding on ourselves and the producers to meet our every meticulous needs and wants. We also need to be more aware of the sway and influence that marketing and familiarity has on our choices, and realize that we actually do not need a lot of the things that we own or buy. Eliminating these useless choices will make our lives a lot easier and economic. Although this paradox of choice can often confuse and leave consumers in doldrums, we have to understand that underneath this conundrum lays a blessing. This paradox is a side-effect of economic prosperity, and only exists in affluent developed countries. There are still plenty consumers in poorer countries who would benefit greatly from more choices. So although our complex, globalized world may at times seem contradictory and confusing amongst the infinite choices, we have to be grateful for what we have and stay aware so that we may not fall victim to the hands of the paradox of choice. |
Reference
B. Katalinic. (2010). Electronic Commerce within the Context of Globalization, Annals of DAAAM for 2010. 21(1). 1726-9679. 727.
International Trade Administration. Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved from http://trade.gov/fta/
Leanne Wang, May L., &Tong W.(2011). China Retail Annual Report (GAIN Report number: CH0816). Shanghai, China. Shanghai ATO.
The Paradox of Choice (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less
