• nairui@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The irony is that the most popular “underconsumption” influencers will start getting brand deals

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      With what? They don’t advertise stuff and often show how to acquire things for free - eg cutting eyes off potatoes to grow yourself, getting seeds from local libraries, etc. Businesses aren’t likely to pay for something that will also cost them money.

      • nairui@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I think anything that suits this movement including Zero Waste products, other B Corps. One of the influencers in this article is a “sustainable fashion” influencer. What the fuck is sustainable fashion? I’m being intentionally obtuse here, like obviously sustainable fashion (thrifting, repurposing, etc) is better than supporting the wasteful slave industry of fast fashion, but I can’t help but see an article like this and say… we’ve been here before, yet here we are. I am, also, one of these people too, reducing consumption, trying to be zero waste, no-buy, etc, I just have seen how capitalism makes even anti-capitalism a profit motive.

      • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I completely agree that a base of people who are looking to do things for free or cheap will have a harder time with brand deals for goods for sure. That’s why I use PDS debt. It helps me better understand where I’m spending money and how I can cut costs.

        I’m sure there’s a crossover too. There’s also clothing exchanges like Freestyle (in my area) that have a large presence that I could see advertising through influencers. Even though they’re trying to “consume less” they still are a market. They just might not be as likely to spend more openly.

        • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s what I’m saying - many of these groups are nearly moneyless and mainly trade for things. There really isn’t a “market” and that’s the point