I am willing to argue that a person can tell a lot about the society they are living in simply by going to the store.
Which store, you ask? Well, it really doesn't matter, and here's why.
Drag a foreigner to a supermarket, home renovation center, or even a pharmacy, and if they aren't scared off by the sheer size of the place and you don't lose them, they will very likely be consumed by the vast number of different frozen fish sticks or toilet paper brands.
Conversely, if you send a North American to Europe, Asia, or even South America to get their groceries, one of the first things they will notice is the seemingly barbaric characteristic of having only six brands of dental floss to choose from.
A friend of mine once described shopping at a Wal-Mart in Guadalajara, and said that the size was big even for his standards. They had over 100 check-out lines. Alternatively, the selection and product mix was a rather different scenario. Shipments of goods seemed to come in irregularly and without much order. One day an entire aisle would be bare, but the next it would be overflowing with endless pallets of Zucchini-flavored Gatorade.
While some may dismiss this as a consequence of "development," I wonder if having so many choices is really a good thing. Author Barry Schwartz of The Paradox of Choice describes a paralyzing condition brought on by simply having too many choices, which actually leads to an indecision breakdown and, ultimately, consumers buying less stuff.
Schwartz cited a Consumer Reports associate who said that 10 years ago the magazine would spend maybe $5,000 to purchase and test the 20 available TVs on the market. Today, the TV budget alone is $500,000 to procure dozens of makes.
Professor Jagdish Sheth of the Goizueta Business School at Emory University wrote a book called The Rule of Three, which claims that people really don't want too many options. It further maintains that any category in virtually any industry will be dominated by three different players.
In essence, having only two entities creates too much pure competition, and having four makes it too expensive for everyone. Additionally, it is usually the third in the group who is the innovator. A typical defensive strategy for the others is to go into niche markets. While I immediately believed there could be merit in this concept, I initially thought the automotive industry must be an exception.
When you break it down, though, Sheth may be on to something with this tripartite thing.
Should you be in a patriotic mood, there are, in fact, three domestic auto brands to choose from: GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler (that they offer some 47 different "mid-sized sedans" between them is another story – see Decisions, Decisions...) Want something more "Teutonic?" BMW, Mercedes, or Audi. Prefer Raman noodles with your Budweiser? Its Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Sushi? Lexus, Acura, Infiniti. On a budget? Hyundai, Kia, Suzuki. Bangers and mash? Jaguar, Range Rover, Aston Martin. Pasta? Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati.
As a matter of fact, at the end of the day, there are really only three places of automotive origin: North America, Europe and Asia. It's almost scary how consistent the auto industry is with the The Rule of Three -- right down to that third player being the "innovative" one.
Surely Scandinavia could throw a wrench into Sheth's evil three-way…but alas, no. After Volvo and SAAB, many Porsches hail not from Stuttgart, but Uusikaupunki, Finland.
Which leaves me with Volkswagen. No wonder they are having such an identity crisis in North America.
Comments