Give people what they want — or understand what the planet needs? And then, make a change?
The marketing dilemma—wants vs needs—is a true paradox.
Marketing experts preach one golden rule: Give people what they want. Specifically, empathise so deeply with your audience that you anticipate their desires.
Fast fashion obeys, flooding the market with cheap, disposable clothes. Luxury brands, ironically, follow the same model. Other industries—from cosmetics to tech—are no different.
But this “wants-first” mantra has a dark side: overproduction, waste, and greenwashed illusions.
If marketing is about empathy, why does it fuel a system that harms people and the planet? Or is empathy just the new frontier of brainwashing?
Above all, in our daily business, should we cater to wants—or to what makes sense in the face of climate collapse and societal breakdown?
The marketing trap: Why “give them what they want” fails fashion
The industry runs on a simple formula: identify desire, amplify it, profit. But what if the desire itself is engineered?
- The illusion of choice:
Consumers feel empowered because they can afford endless products. Shop more = happiness. But are they truly choosing, or just playing a rigged game? The truth? A system built on exploitation and injustice offers sweeteners—cheap prices, fleeting trends—to mask its harm. - Advertising’s fantasy:
Fast fashion sells “luxury for all,” while luxury brands mimic fast fashion’s speed. Both rely on the same lie: You need this—and you deserve it. They sell fantasies of luxury, exclusivity, and sustainability while churning out exploitative, planet-killing products. - The dopamine loop:
Social media, flash sales, and FOMO turn shopping into an addiction. Dopamine-driven consumption keeps people buying. The algorithm wins; the planet loses.
The marketing dilemma: Profit vs. reinvention
Here’s the crux: profit or reinvention?
Brands that pivot to sustainability cater to a niche. But these brands face a brutal truth: Ethics don’t scale like exploitation.
In fact, the penalty of being niche is clear. Sustainability requires degrowth. It means smaller margins, slower growth, and putting off mass-market shoppers. Even “conscious” consumers often revert to cheap fixes.
So, what to do? Raise prices? Reduce stock? Risk becoming “irrelevant” in a world trained to expect endless newness.
In our experience, shifting from a broad selection of international brands to a narrowed-down niche curation of meaningful garments has hurt profits. Few understand the value of “no fluff” curation. Most still chase low prices—regardless of human or planetary cost.
But who’s to blame? Brands for manipulating desire? Consumers for complying? Or marketing for refusing to challenge the status quo? Or pretending so?
Can marketing break the cycle?
The same tools that created this mess could fix it—if used differently.
• First, reframing the “Want”: What if marketing created demand for durability, not disposability?
• Second, honesty as a strategy: Limited productions, slowness, and imperfection are virtues.
But will this work for the mainstream? It’s worth a try. We’re trying. Yet we fear the system itself—exploitative and rigid—will suffocate those who don’t conform.
Final thoughts: The mirror crack’d
In the face of climate change, the marketing dilemma—wants vs needs—reveals itself as a true paradox. The paradox of preserving an economic system that comes at the planet’s expense. A system that persists despite generating appalling inequalities and societal breakdown.
Yet we’ve come to understand that what people want—cheap prices, overconsumption—directly contradicts what the planet needs.
So we face a choice: Do we continue giving people what they want, further overloading the planet? Or do we persist in narrowing our garment curation, knowing we’ll only reach a handful of free thinkers?
Fashion is a mirror of society. Right now, it reflects our addiction to consumption, our short attention spans, and our disconnect from the consequences of our choices. But mirrors can crack—and so can this system.
The rise of second-hand, repair culture, slow fashion, and limited curations proves some are awakening.
We must ask: Who’s willing to look beyond their own reflection?
The essential question isn’t “What do you want?”—it’s “What are you willing to stop wanting?”
Three big questions: What do YOU want?
- Would you pay more for ethical fashion? Do you care about sustainability, or is price still king? Be honest.
- If you say you care about the planet but still buy 10 cheap tops a month—what’s stopping you from changing?
- Should marketing change wants, not just cater to them?
🖤 Reply below (you need to register first)