Retail Environment

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/72644/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Sound is everywhere. In urban areas, it forms part of how we feel about and negotiate various social settings. 
The space we focus on here is the retail environment. Based on interviews with shoppers about the kinds of music and sounds encountered, we are examining how and why the acoustic dimension can either heighten or diminish the shopping experience.
When successful, music in retail spaces stimulates positive corporeal and other sensory responses in shoppers. The other side of the coin is that a majority of interview participants reported unpleasant musical experiences in retail situations. 
Interviewees who liked to hear music when shopping reported that it added a sense of rhythm to what they were doing. It made the experience feel more dynamic or lively than otherwise might have been the case. 
Some shoppers reported being so energised by the music that they worried they might engage in conspicuous behaviour such as dancing, singing and other conduct not usually found in retail settings. One participant said she was so responsive and captive to music in the shops that she feared being considered a “public weirdo” by retail staff and other shoppers.
Those who had negative responses to music included consumers who sensed that the music played in certain stores was “discriminatory”. This was because it seemed aimed at particular gender or age groups that excluded them.
Volume was another important source of disquiet. The greater the volume, the greater the imposition these shoppers felt. 
Some shoppers avoided altogether “noisy” or “loud” retail spaces. Others reported getting through the shopping experience faster than they would have liked. And some resorted to the “privatisation” of their aural experience by using personal musical devices.
<h2>In what ways does music offend?</h2>
But why should music and sound be contentious in retail settings? There is a long history of people using music and sound to augment the experiences of events like festivals, community and religious celebrations, as well as markets and fairs.
One possibility is that consumers are concerned that retail atmospheres are designed to manipulate them into buying things through music and other forms of sensory conditioning, such as lighting, smell, temperature and colour schemes. However, this doesn’t really explain why some consumers reported feeling dislocated or not “at home” in retail environments. 
Music and sound can often offend shoppers for other reasons, we suggest. Following the insights of microsociologist Erving Goffman, we think the acoustic environment of retail shopping is a complex “interaction order”, which is more fragile than we realise. 
We contend that music and sound can impinge upon what Goffman termed the “territories of the self”. This refers to the physical and mental space that the individual expects others will provide to them. Thus, music that is perceived as “noisy”, “loud” or “annoying” – as reported by the interview subjects – threatens the boundaries that the individual seeks to protect, and expects others will observe.
Unlike vision or touch, sound is much more difficult to control or protect oneself one from; sound spills across thresholds and enters into situations where it is unwelcome. 
Equally, when interview subjects reported annoyance at retail environments starting to resemble nightclubs or pubs, they were highlighting concerns about what Goffman called “frame disputes”. Music can counteract “situationally appropriate” framing, if the shopper comes to feel that the acoustic environment is not providing the right scripts, cues or definition of the situation.
<h2>Can and should retailers stop the music?</h2>
So how might retailers respond to the kind of “territorial offences” that some of our interview subjects identified? 
Some have reacted to the frictions generated by sound, and other types of sensory overload, by introducing “quiet hour shopping”. As one Adelaide lifestyle website reported, at Frewville Foodland:
"The lights will be dimmed, music and pager messages switched off, volume of the ‘beeps’ on the check-outs lowered, there will be no coffee grinding and strong smells will be reduced where possible."
We applaud attempts to creatively redesign the shopping experience and to provide consumers with sensorially enriched retail environments. However, we would caution against simplistic understandings of the impacts of sound on the retail experience; nor do we condone seeing music and sound as something that should be avoided. 
It is true that humans possess a limited capacity to process auditory information. At worst, this leaves scope for exploitation in the form of sonic torture and sonic weaponry. But it is also true, as our respondents reported, that music and sound can enrich experiences by enhancing the mood, tempo and liveliness associated with certain activities. 
The last thing we want is for all retail spaces to sound the same. As experimental composer and Zen Buddhism practitioner John Cage noted:
"There is no such thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear. In fact, try as we may to make a silence, we cannot."
We tend to be annoyed because, when we bump into them in the supermarket aisle, sounds don’t say “excuse me”. However, if Cage is right and there is no such thing as a silent retail space, we might as well as learn to share supermarket aisles with sounds beyond our control and sounds not on our playlists.
Michael Walsh is assistant professor of Social Science, University of Canberra and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-walsh-147733" target="_blank">here</a>.
Eduardo de la Fuente is senior lecturer in Creativity and Innovation, James Cook University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/eduardo-de-la-fuente-161803" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Contested spaces: you can’t stop the music – the sounds that divide shoppers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australian supermarkets phasing out single-use plastic bags is just one example of how retailers are fiercely engaged in a race to be “green”. Other examples are dumping plastic straws, buying back used products and reducing unnecessary packaging.
Rather than competing on price or time, green credentials offer a way for retailers to differentiate themselves. Encouraging customers to make overtly good moves also has a psychological effect, allowing them to excuse poor behaviour elsewhere – such as buying a product that may not be ethically sourced.
Having a strong green record also helps create a buffer for when events like plastic bags killing whales or sweatshop abuse hit the headlines.
Way back in April Woolworths announced the removal of all single-use bags across the country by the end of June. Although, after some backlash, Woolworths has said it will give bags to customers until the 8th of July.
Coles will also ban single-use bags from July 1.
Woolworths has since announced further strategies for “a greener future”. These include reducing unnecessary packaging and linking with “food waste diversion partners”.
However, sustainability is bigger than just food waste and plastics.
Ikea Australia recently announced it will “buy back” used furniture to resell. IKEA has been doing this in other markets, like Hong Kong, for some time.
Buying ‘green’ makes us feel good
The consumer market for green products and services was estimated at US$230 billion in 2009 and predicted to grow to $845 billion by 2015.
While consumers are increasingly engaging in shopping activities that support the environment, such as reusing shopping bags, buying local and supporting local farmers and producers, at the same time many are still tempted by A$4 T-shirts from Kmart.
This behaviour can perhaps be explained by the effect of “moral self-licensing”. This is where consumers do something good to offset their bad behaviour.
In the context of shopping, a good deed, a customer putting reusable bags in the boot of the car, will be followed by a not-so-good deed, such as driving to the shops in our gas-guzzling 4WD.
In this way, the first choice gives us a positive self-concept, which negates or “licenses” the subsequent more self-indulgent choice.
A slippery (green) slope
The only concern for companies is that they might be accused of “greenwashing” – using marketing to create the perception that their policies, purpose or products are environmentally friendly, when that’s not really the case.
Despite consumer awareness of the practice of greenwashing, the number of companies making green claims has escalated sharply in recent years as organisations strive to meet escalating consumer demand for greener products and services.
According to one advertising consultancy, there were 2,219 products making green claims in 2009 alone, a 79% increase over two years earlier.
Research shows that when consumers are sceptical about a retailer’s corporate social responsibility practices, this can damage the retailer’s brand, increase sensitivity to negative information and stimulate unfavourable word of mouth.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen exactly these phenomena play out again and again.
Several years ago, Walmart faced scrutiny about its corporate social responsibility claims relating to renewable energy, the industrialisation of food systems and its cheaply made, disposable products.
Starbuck’s green credentials were met with scepticism when it was reported some stores left taps running all day to clear pipes.
Other retailers like Bed Bath &amp; Beyond, Nordstrom, JC Penney and Backcountry.com have faced fines for making misleading environmental claims.
Banning the single-use plastic bag alone will not save the environment. Sadly, it is not as simple as that. Research shows lightweight plastic shopping bags make up around 1.6% of litter in Australia or less than 2% of landfill.
However, despite some backlash, banning the bag is certainly a step in the right direct.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99073/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Remembering to bring reusable shopping bags is a fairly significant change in shopping behaviour, but the practice has been successfully implemented in states such as Tasmania, which banned single use bags several years ago.
Louise Grimmer, Lecturer in Marketing, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania
Gary Mortimer, Associate Professor in Marketing and International Business, Queensland University of Technology
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/green-is-the-new-black-why-retailers-want-you-to-know-about-their-green-credentials-99073" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Retail Environment

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Retail Environment

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News