Experience Economy and Same Sex Marriage, Research Proposal Example

Experience Economy

The possible integration of same sex marriages in the wedding industry also leads to the discussion of Experience Economy that has been described by scholars as the subsequent economy next to the agrarian economy. Followed by industrial economy, which was followed more recently by the service economy. A wedding embodies aspects key to Pine and Gilmore’s (2010) experience economy such as meaning and emotions and with the SSC the added aspect of social value. According to the authors, (Pine and Gilmore 2010), experience economies are related to the activity of selling and staging memorable events, such as weddings.

Pine and Gilmore’s (2010) experience economy definition, stating that events are personal and emotional is critiqued by several authors. Richards (2006:2) states that as the global competition of locations and providers grows, the uniqueness of the experience seems to be lost. However, the author also states that in the second generation of experience economy consumers, the act of co-creation performed by consumers. This action and influence of the experience can, indeed in the end result in unique events and personalized services. Further, examining the second generation experiences, authors (Seldby, 2004. Binkhorst, 2005. Firat, 1997) also confirm that the creation of experience is in the hands of both providers and the consumer. Today’s advanced communication tools and collaborative information technology create a unique experience. Therefore, while in the beginning of the emergence of experience economies, the uniqueness of experience started to disappear, “second generation of experiences’ based on co-creation have developed and take the individual as a starting point” (Binkhorst, 2005; 314) This also indicates that the role of consumers changed from being passive recipients to becoming designers and innovators. Talking about the approach of Philips Design (Binkhorst, 2005; 315),  the author states that today’s companies need to be  “investigating people’s needs and value” instead of providing ready made packages. This relates to the vision and values of groups, such as gay sub-culture.

George & Elshtain, (2006), Goss & Strongheart (2008) state that the introduction of same sex marriage institution in America has created a new, unique segment of experience economy. In the first year alone, over 8000 same-sex marriage licenses were issued. (NYC And Company, 2012;3) It is evident that some consumer choices of same sex couples will be similar to traditional (opposite-sex) wedding customers’. Still, the budget of the reception, wedding function is likely to differ, due to the lower level of family/church involvement. According to NYC And Company (2012:16), an average same-sex wedding costs around 9000 dollars, while opposite-sex weddings’ average expenditure is 21.000 dollars.  Same-sex weddings generally have a smaller guest list. According to the latest published statistics of The Knot, (1) the average number of guests on all weddings is 139. As a comparison, according to the Williams Institute (3), 57 percent of same sex weddings had less than 60 guests.

As experience economies offer consumers staged experiences that are personal, memorable, it is evident that when examining a particular segment of this economy, there is a need to examine the sensations associated with the service. (Pine and Gilmore 1999: 3) The value of the service (experience) is no longer determined by the investment of resources, but the staging of the experience that is a result of a collaboration and interaction between the wedding planner and the couple. However, it is important to note that same sex couples would have different preferences and they would expect different outcomes (experiences) than opposite-sex couples. That is why the experience economy industry needs to understand the expectations of this emerging market segment.

Andrews and Leopold (2013) state that events are often related to rituals. In modern society, the event of same-sex marriage is somewhat new, and has fewer traditions than opposite-sex marriage. (NYC & Company 2012) The institution of marriage has been around for thousands of years. The authors conclude that marriage rites “mark transition from single to married status, joining families, partnership”. (Andrews and Leopold 2013: 86) There are certainly rituals associated with marriage that might be relevant to same sex marriages, however, as it is a new social event and experience, the influence of the consumer is likely to be stronger than in the case of traditional marriages. This is true because there are no existing traditions and customs associated with same sex marriages.

The social significance of beliefs, behaviors and attitudes (Andrews and Leopold, 2013) are closely related to the experience economy of same sex marriages. Couples are more likely to want to make a statement about their identity (not only sexual) during the event (ritual).

Pine and Gilmore (2010) state that the experiences we have affect our personal identity,  what we can accomplish and where we are going. This also indicates that there is an interaction between events and personality formation. A consumer would choose an experience because it expresses what they want to be, how they define themselves. However, the event itself would also form the identity of the consumer.  Postmodern consumers ask companies to change experiences that change their identities. Consumer interaction, involvement in the wedding planning process has been growing continuously in the past years. A  wedding ceremony is one of the most significant experiences in people’s lives. It demonstrates key aspects of experiential management the wedding day itself becomes a reflection of self image, and the wedding industries services promote themselves as the ultimate transformative experience. By achieving societal acceptance, legal recognition and conveying cohesion that generates emotional support and acceptance from friends and family through their union SSC are achieving their aspirations, which is key to transformation. (Hertz 2013)

Conspicuous Consumption

The term “conspicuous consumption” was first introduced by the economist Thorstein Veblen (1899) who defined it as a “principle means of designating superior status”. It is evident that a wedding is a part of one’s social statement, and the consumer image is created through the design of the experience. The greater the list of guests is the more influence the consumer is able to have on his/her social environment. However, in the case of same sex marriage, the statement is not only based on socio-economic status, but also influenced by something called “gay pride”. Therefore, the original statement of Veblen seems to be less relevant to the gay sub-culture.  A Community Marketing Insights Survey about travel (2013: 18) confirms the above statement: “For both men and women, Pride remains the top LGBT event in?uencing travel.” As a result of the finding, it is likely that weddings’ conspicuous consumption patterns are more influenced by this motivation than an economic class statement.

As the weddings of SSC will be compared to that of traditional couples there is an element of competition. The conspicuous consumption associated with same sex couples is the tool that is used to connote their social status and identity. (Shove and Warde 1998: 4) However, lesbian couples are seen to be more respectable consumers than that of gay couples as the lesbian market is deemed less affluent. (Joshi 2012) For SSC a wedding is a means of performance and social positioning within the homosexual community as well as celebrating there newly achieved rights, the lavish spending on the day is a way to compete for status with other SSC all attempting to be the first or biggest of these new type of non traditional weddings (social comparison). There is a significant difference in the selection of wedding celebration location between same sex and opposite sex couples, according to the New York and Co. Study. (2012) Around 68 percent of same sex couples chose a restaurant, compared to 45 percent of opposite sex couples. Fourteen percent of same sex couples decided with a private home reception, and only 3 percent used a catering hall.

As the budget of same sex couple marriage events is lower than opposite sex couples, it is evident that the motivation to gain economic status is of lower importance in case of SSM. Social status, acceptance, recognition and a “status of normality”, however, act as motivators. Money is not spent to impress the society about wealth and social status: it is a tool to create an image of “normality”. Paterson (2005:55) talks about consumer visions. These are expressed through consumer choices. Therefore, if a couple would like to appear “normal” or traditional, non-deviant, they would choose a restaurant for their civil partnership reception. However, it would cost them money to appear sophisticated and socially accepted. This is exactly what the research of the New York and Co. Study. (2012) has found.

Shove and Warde, (1998: 2) however, talk about inconspicuous consumption. The authors state that there are five different elements that influence conspicuous consumption, instead of the original one main motivator determined by Veblen: superior status. Shove and Warde (1998: 3) determine the four dynamics of conspicuous consumption as: social comparison, identity, novelty, matching and specialization in daily life.  It is true that the “concern for status (Moav & Neeman 2008: 6) is present as a motivator when it comes to consumer decisions as well, but Veblen’s “superiority” model is simplifying the problem to an extent.

Gay couples use inclusive symbols and language is important in order to create an “accepted” and “respected status as well as to communicate their sexual identity. This relates to Shove and Warde’s (1998: 4) five dynamics model more than Veblen’s. Indeed,  when examining the motivations that lead to conspicuous consumption, the five dynamics can be examined separately within groups of lesbian and gay couples.

Our consumption choices speak to the world and are a way to represent who we are. Gottdiener (2000) describes conspicuous consumption as consuming in excess to evidence honor, wealth and social status. In the case of same sex couples, social status seems to be one of the most important messages of consumption choices. As gay celebrity couples gain more media attention, their wedding pictures and videos are distributed through TV channels and the Internet.  This activity is related to Shove and Warde’s two dynamics: social comparison and matching. These marriages are not only statements of social status, but pride (often communicated by gay celebrities) as well.

While the theory of conspicuous consumption developed by Veblen (1899) is valid in the case of same sex marriages, Griskevicius et al. (2007) add a new, valid aspect to research consumer behavior related to experience economies. The authors state that prosocial behavior determines the choices consumers make. While signaling social and economic status is costly, it rewards the consumer with the self-image they are looking to develop. As the authors put it: “public philanthropy might be a conspicuous display of resources and generosity that      signals an individual’s ability to incur costs by sacrificing— or even wasting—money and time (without reaping the benefits of aiding kin or future reciprocation)”

The authors would also like to argue that the post-modern consumer’s self-image is not only determined by their target social status, but also their sexual orientation. Paterson (2005: 39) states that “social groups maintain their identities by a process distinguishing themselves from others, this process of distinction being performed through acts of consumption”. The identity of a same sex couple is certainly partly based on their sexual orientation, therefore, their consumer behavior will be determined by the desired group they would like to belong to. The message of identity is also often sent through purchasing decisions: decorations can be rainbow colored, a signal for gay pride.

Heffetz (2004: 2) brings motivation into the picture, when talking about conspicuous consumption. He calls consumption patterns signaling games (2004:3) and states that motivations vary from one social group to another. He looks at the problem of consumption in a socio-cultural context, which is more relevant to same sex marriages than simply translating consumer decisions to economic status signaling. Same sex couples use conspicuous consumption to gain recognition and acceptance. As the legislation was put in place, many couples saw the opportunity to legalize their partnership status. As Joshi (2011: 421) puts it,

“Too often in our social, economic, legal, and political worlds, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people are denied even the most basic rights and recognitions.”

The above statement indicates that one of the motivators of same sex couples to use signaling through conspicuous consumption is to gain recognition. The couples are not only trying to gain an economic, social status, but also would like to be accepted as “normal” and not “diverse”. (Joshi, 2011: 421)

The above examination of gay marriages not confirm the lack of conspicuous consumption or its lower impact in case of SSM couples.  However, it did not confirm Veblen’s thesis, either. Same sex couples are not only motivated to use conspicuous consumption to signal “superiority”. Paterson (2005:56) states that in the post-modern consumer behavior, the principal behavior dimensions are uniqueness and social confirmation, instead of the communication of superiority, noted by Veblen (1899).  This statement is not necessarily contradicting Paterson’s (2005: 39) argument, though. The presence of conspicuous consumption can be confirmed by the survey findings that a great proportion of same sex couples used several professional wedding services, such as florists, photographers and purchased bridal/formal wear. (New York and Co. Study 2012) As a result, we can conclude that the main motivations of same sex couples do not lie in a consumer vision of belonging to a “rich” social class, more importantly a “normal, respected and accepted” class as gays. This explains the much lower budget of SSM compared to opposite-sex marriages, but does not indicate the lack of conspicuous consumption in the unique experience economy.

Reference List

Andrews, H. And Leopold, T., (2013), Events and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge, Chapter 2

Bourdieu, P. (1987). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard: Harvard University Press

Chaudhuri, H. (2006)  Of Diamonds and Desires: Understanding Conspicuous Consumption from a Contemporary Marketing Perspective. AMS Review. Volume 2006, no. 11, Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/chaudhuri08-2005.pdf

Community Marketing Inc (2013) Same-Sex Couples: Weddings and Engagements. <http://communitymarketinginc.com/documents/temp/SameSex_Couples_Weddings2013.pdf>

Community Marketing Inc (2013) 18^th  Annual LGBT Travel Survey November 2013. <http://www.communitymarketinginc.com/documents/CMI_Research2013/CMI_18th_LGBT_TravelSurvey2013.pdf >

Davies, A & Cline, T (2005)  A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 797–826.

Heffetz, O. (2004) Conspicuous Consumption and the Visibility of Consumer Expenditures. Department of Economics,  Princeton University publication. 2004.

George, R.,  Elshtain, J. (2006) The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals. Spence Publication

Goss, R., Strongheart, A. (2008) Our Families, Our Values. Snapshots of Queer Kinship. Harworth Press.

Gottdiener, M. (2000) New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture and Commodification. Rowman and Littlefield.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., Sundie, J., Cialidni, R., Miller, G., Kenrick, D. (2007) Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, Vol. 93, No. 1, 85–102

Joshi, Y. (2012) Respectable Queerness. Columbia Human Rights Review. 43:2 416-467

Moav, O., Neeman, Z. (2008) Conspicuous Consumption, Human Capital, and Poverty. CEPR Discussion Papers 6864, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. 2008.

NYC & Company  (2012) Research Report: Economic Impact of Same-Sex Marriage. New York City 2011-2012 <http://igltafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Report_Economic-Impact-of-Same-Sex-Marriage_NYC-2012_Final.pdf>

Ogilvie, F. (2011) Same-sex marriage vote succeeds. ABC News. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-21/20110921–same-sex-vote-succeeds/2910102>

Palomar 2012 (2012) How to study for chapter 20 monopolistic competition, viewed 24 February 2012,  <http://www2.palomar.edu/users/llee/chapc20.pdf>.

Paterson, M. (2005) Consumption and Everyday Life. Routledge. London and New York.

Phillips, D., Olson, J., Baumgartner, H. (1995) Consumption Visions in Consumer Decision Making. Advances in Consumer Research. Volume 22, 1995 280-289

Pine, J & Gilmore, J (2010) The Experience Economy. Harvard Business Press.

Richards, Greg. (1999) Vacation and the Quality of Life: Patterns and Structures. Journal of Business Research. 44, 189-198. New York, Elsevier Science Inc.

Shove, E., Warde, A. (1998)  Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption and the environment. <http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/shove-warde-inconspicuous-consumption.pdf>

The Williams Institute. The Business Boost from Marriage Equality: Evidence from the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey. <http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Goldberg-Steinberger-Business-Boost-MA-Survey-May-2009.pdf>

The Knot. TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com Reveal Results of Largest Wedding Study of Its Kind, Surveying More Than 17,500 Brides. 2013. <http://www.xogroupinc.com/press-releases-home/2013-press-releases/2013-03-07-tkwc-wedding-study-survey.aspx>

Veblen, T. (1899) Conspicuous Consumption. In: The Theory of the Leisure Class (NY: Macmillan, 1899), pp. 64–70