The Fall of Production-Consumption Dichotomy and the Rise of Prosumption

Figure 1: “Prosumption” typed in word processor; unrecognized

Toffler (1980 cited Ritzer et al., 2012, p.1) defines prosumption as “the combination of production and consumption”. While this term has existed for over three decades now, the body of knowledge surrounding what we know about production and consumption could arguably be a delusional divide that never really existed. Ritzer et al. (2012) argue that this term is primordial and have always existed. However, could we simply dismiss traditional dichotomies that surrounds production-consumption?

The rise of the Web and social media was cited as one of the social changes that granted the term prosumption much scholarly attention (Ritzer et al., 2012). Kotler (1986) built upon Toffler’s work and argues the implication for marketers which suggests the prominence of prosumption. While these scholars agree upon the prominence of prosumption, it begs the question of where we are in terms of marketing academic discipline and practice’s acceptance on the terminology. Why do business schools still deliver the idea of production and consumption as separate entities? Why do consumer research still exists in marketing departments? Shouldn’t it be called prosumer research instead? This brings the argument to where we are in Marketing in the 21^st Century. The whole notion behind production and consumption are in parallel to how Toffler (1980 cited Kotler, 1986) describes three waves in human history (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Toffler’s Paradigm adapted from Kotler’s (1986) The Prosumer’s Movement: a new challenge for Marketers

Ritzer et al. (2012) argue that the paradigm suggests that both Toffler and Kotler were way ahead of their times considering the context that they were describing in the 1980s. Three decades later, we are seeing the rise of the Web and social media that acts a catalyst to this “movement”. While the prominence of this is prevalent in our era, it seems that there is so much inertia in the acceptance of this terminology.

Grocery shopping could be used as a basis to understand prosumption. During the first wave, most households were reliant on growing their own crops or hunt for their own food for survival. In this case, they produce and consume their own groceries per se. During the second wave, very much impacted by the Industrial Revolution, people work in factories to produce goods that they do not consume. Instead, they use what they earn from working in factories to buy the groceries available in markets. Finally, in the third wave, is what we are almost seeing today. People engaging back in prosumption by growing their own crops again or even hunting (or fishing), both as a form of leisure due to the preference of using their time. However, could we simply argue that this is the same for every consumption activity other than grocery shopping? For instance, if we were to adopt the same concept and apply it to household furniture, it will very much be similar. It seems that it goes on as a cycle where traditionally, men were expected to be au fait with carpentry (first wave), buys furniture (second wave) and now we have the rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) furniture (i.e. IKEA) (third wave).

The emphasis for “almost seeing” what Toffler and Kotler describe the third wave may be questionable. Not every household will in fact grow their own crops or hunt for food or decides to buy IKEA furniture in this era. But social changes such as the rapid development of technology may very well act as a strong catalyst for the third wave (Kotler, 1986). For instance, consider 3D printing in the near future where the possibilities are endless. Marriott (2015) describes the possibility of fashion using 3D printing that may be inculcated in our daily lives. If technology permits such essentials, that will be the perfect epitome of prosumption. It may be for this reason that explains the inertia for acceptance of this terminology as we have not fully experience the existence of prosumption. While self-checkout tills and factory lines are closely similar to the notion of prosumption where there may not be any significant differences, how does this implicate Marketing in the 21^st Century? This extends the argument to how marketers are eager to understand and reduce every consumer to one dimension in a spreadsheet. As how Gabriel and Lang (2015) describes in their book The Unmanageable Consumer, the typology of consumers does not suggest that it could ever be reduced to one dimension. Relative to prosumption, it further corroborates the fragmentation of consumers.

It is evident that we cannot simply dismiss traditional dichotomies of production-consumption. There is enough evidence as to why “prosumption” is termed as unrecognized when typed on word processors. Till the day the wriggly red underline does not appear, it may very well be the day where we simply print our food, clothes and houses.

References:

Gabriel, Y. & Lang, T., 2015. The Unmanageable Consumer Third Edit., SAGE. Available at: https://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZBtiCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=unmanageable+consumer&ots=12oihfbr9k&sig=gX-uhY6A4oLMzgegPvibyvTXGkU#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Kotler, P., 1986. The Prosumer Movement : a New Challenge For Marketers. NA – Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13. Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6542/volumes/v13/NA-13 [Accessed November 9, 2016].

Marriott, H., 2015. Are we ready to 3D print our own clothes? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/jul/28/are-we-ready-to-print-our-own-3d-clothes.

Ritzer, G., Dean, P. & Jurgenson, N., 2012. The Coming of Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), pp.379–398. Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/4/379.short.