Who is to blame for “Black Friday” violence?

Each year we hear about violence in stores on the Thursday after Thanksgiving in the United States.  As this commercial trend has been exported, the violence has followed.  This violence is morally reprehensible.  But, who is to blame?  Is it the companies?  Or consumers?

Companies

Bob Port, editor of sayanythingblog.com, argues that the only people we have to blame for “Black Friday” is ourselves.  Speaking from a more commercial standpoint, he advocates that companies are essentially the middlemen in the consumer chain.  They are open, because people are buying things.  These sentiments were echoed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Bill Simon.  In an interview with Today, he said, “We’re in the service industry.  We open when our customers want to shop.” 

The problem is companies have trained consumers to shop for deals.  Advertisements leading up to the holiday prominently display savings and deals designed to get shoppers on the sales floor.  Certainly, customers could shop elsewhere, or not shop at all.  But, over the years, consumers have become so trained that they will wait, all night, in the cold, to enter a store.  This is a situation that the companies have had a hand in creating.   

However, as reported by Suzanne Kapner in the Wall Street Journal, Black Friday bargains are little more than smoke and mirrors.  An item is artificially priced high during the year so that when it goes “on sale” the item is selling at the price point they want to sell them at.  Dana Mattioli argues that the prices on some items are raised before Black Friday to allow for the discounts.  But, these discounts are more about getting consumers in the store in the hopes that they buy items that have actually had their prices increased for the country’s busiest shopping day.  Combined with the fact that the same prices, if not lower prices, are offered in November or throughout the holiday season, and it makes the companies look a little bit greedy using artificially created discounts to get consumers to buy other goods that are priced higher than normal. 

By artificially inflating prices, all prices lose their integrity.  Supply and demand seem to hold little sway over prices.  The sales tag reflects what people are willing to pay, not what basic economic forces dictate the price should be.

Companies, I suspect would argue that they have a responsibility to turn a profit.  Revenue goes to pay employees and operating costs.  Profits are used for future investments.  But, I argue that companies have a responsibility to the communities they serve, aside from employment and the services they provide.  That responsibility includes assisting in the betterment of the community.  There is no better way to assist the community than to provide a non-threatening shopping experience.  Having more staff on hand to assist shoppers has done nothing to stem violence.  So, either there is not enough staff, or the staff is not preventing violence.

The argument for blaming companies for Black Friday violence would be as follows:

Companies have created the circumstances that lead to violence.  They have trained consumers to shop for deals.  They create a sense of urgency with discounts that are artificially created to get shoppers in the store to buy other items at a high price.  Lastly, the stores have a social responsibility to prevent violence, and yet do not.  This sounds an awful lot like negligence, at false advertisement at the least.

Consumers

Companies don’t commit violent acts, people do.  Are we, the people, to blame for all the violence?

Thanksgiving once was a time for family.  And, the Bears v. Lions game (Bear down!!)  However, the tradition of sitting at home as a family has eroded over time. 

One New York woman left the holiday dinner to by a large TV.  While the shopper confessed, “I don’t really dig the Thanksgiving night thing, I feel bad for the workers.”  But, that did not stop her from skipping out to the store in the first place.   Furthermore, some families wait in “Black Friday” lines as a family.  Some may claim that cherished memories have been created this way.  Simply put, the scene of family bonding has changed from the sitting room to the waiting line.  Over time, people have changed their traditions.  The argument is then made that shopping, or going to stores, is something that people enjoy doing, at least some of us. 

Perhaps the strongest link to the blame of consumers is the reports from the United Kingdom on “Black Friday” violence.  Reports of violence from Bristol to Belfast, raise the alarm that such incidents may not be a simple matter of “Americans being Americans.”  Many of the scenes described, irate customers and stampedes, are now being played out in the U.S. and abroad. 

Thanksgiving traditions have changed.  An increasing number of people are focusing on material possessions.  Some, simply like shopping.  So, consumers seem likely to go shopping on Thanksgiving.  Also, people, by their nature, can be territorial and slightly selfish.  In the direst of moments, self-preservation often prevails, even if it is at the expense of others.  Humans are social beings and can often fall prey to the herd mentality.  Companies can hardly be blamed for that. 

So, who is it?

This is not an exhaustive study.  It could go either way.  Ultimately, it becomes a matter of who we think is more evil: human nature or corporate greed.  I’m more afraid of the latter.