Contemporary internet shopping conjures a perfect storm of choice anxiety. Research has consistently held that people who are presented with a few options make better, easier decisions than those presented with many. . . . Helping consumers figure out what to buy amid an endless sea of choice online has become a cottage industry unto itself. Many brands and retailers now wield marketing buzzwords such as curation, differentiation, and discovery as they attempt to sell an assortment of stuff targeted to their ideal customer. Companies find such shoppers through the data gold mine of digital advertising, which can catalog people by gender, income level, personal interests, and more. Since Americans have lost the ability to sort through the sheer volume of the consumer choices available to them, a ghost now has to be in the retail machine, whether it’s an algorithm, an influencer, or some snazzy ad tech to help a product follow you around the internet. Indeed, choice fatigue is one reason so many people gravitate toward lifestyle influencers on Instagram—the relentlessly chic young moms and perpetually vacationing 20-somethings—who present an aspirational worldview, and then recommend the products and services that help achieve it. . . .
For a relatively new class of consumer-products start-ups, th ere’s another method entirely. Instead of making sense of a sea of existing stuff, these companies claim to disrupt stuff as Americans know it. Casper (mattresses), Glossier (makeup), Away (suitcases), and many others have sprouted up to offer consumers freedom from choice: The companies have a few aesthetically pleasing and supposedly highly functional options, usually at mid-range prices. They’re selling nice things, but maybe more importantly, they’re selling a confidence in those things, and an ability to opt out of the stuff rat race. . . .
One-thousand-dollar mattresses and $300 suitcases might solve choice anxiety for a certain tier of consumer, but the companies that sell them, along with those that attempt to massage the larger stuff economy into something navigable, are still just working within a consumer market that’s broken in systemic ways. The presence of so much stuff in America might be more valuable if it were more evenly distributed, but stuff’s creators tend to focus their energy on those who already have plenty. As options have expanded for people with disposable income, the opportunity to buy even basic things such as fresh food or quality diapers has contracted for much of America’s lower classes.
For start-ups that promise accessible simplicity, their very structure still might eventually push them toward overwhelming variety. Most of these companies are based on hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital, the investors of which tend to expect a steep growth rate
that can’t be achieved by selling one great mattress or one great sneaker. Casper has expanded into bedroom furniture and bed linens. Glossier, after years of marketing itself as no-makeup makeup that requires little skill to apply, recently launched a full line of glittering color cosmetics. There may be no way to opt out of stuff by buying into the right thing.
Which of the following hypothetical statements would add the least depth to the author’s prediction of the fate of start-ups offering few product options?
By "Depth", the author suggests a scenario that adds value or supplies additional information which supports his claim.
Option A: If the startup products grow exponentially and are self-sufficient and do not expand to other products, this scenario directly contradicts the author's probable prediction of these companies. Hence, it would add the least depth to the author's argument. A is the correct answer.
Option B: Lets consider that startups with few product options already exist. In such a case, these startups are no exceptions. For the sake of steep growth and surviving, they might have to expand into different product categories. Hence it adds some depth to the author's prediction.
Option C: "There may be no way to opt-out of stuff by buying into the right thing." The author is clearly displeased with startups ending up with overwhelming variety. Losing regular customers for better growth further invigorates the author's claim against numerous choices. Hence, it adds some value to his criticism.
Option D: If the government doubles their tax rates, as these startups are dependent on select customers for income, they might have to venture into other products and varieties to accentuate their returns and keep the company afloat. Hence, their fate would likely end up the way author predicted it to be.
Create a FREE account and get: