Welcome to Money As If, the free 15-minute chair massage at the end of your 90-minute facial.

Today's treatments:

  • A (figurative and literal) trip to the Head spa

  • Long Branch, revisited

  • Strange collaborations

— Jeanine

P.S. Liking Money As If? Share that referral link below!

IN THESE, OUR SOCIAL MEDIA TIMES

Is … everything conspicuous consumption?

My mother treated me to a day at the Rivieree Scalp Treatment & Spa in Staten Island, New York, a few weeks ago, a trip I had planned on covering lightly in this newsletter’s Receipts section —

Look at this fun, new way to spend your money! Cost just under $200 per person ($178 for a 90-minute scalp massage + $20 tip!) 10/10, would recommend!

— except then I snapped this pic and, well, gave myself a bit of an existential crisis.

See it dawned on me, in that moment, that I couldn’t exactly criticize Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez for conspicuously consuming Venice to get married if I was just going to turn around and do a watered-down version of the same thing.

Conspicuous Consumption: A brief history

Coined by American sociologist Thorstein Veblen in 1899, the term “conspicuous consumption” refers to the act of buying and publicly displaying luxurious goods solely to signal wealth and social status.

Veblen, at the time, was ascribing this behavior to rich people. His book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, came out at the tail-end of The Gilded Age, when the nouveau rich, in particular, were looking for ways to distinguish themselves from the working class.

Over time, however, the term started to apply to consumer behavior more broadly.

These days, “status is relative,” says Dennis Shirshikov, a finance professor at the City University of New York. “Conspicuous consumption exists at every income level; the denominator just shifts. And if 5% of your discretionary income goes to a head spa and you share it, that can be just as ‘conspicuous’ as a billionaire’s yacht pic, just in a different reference group.”

Not so cut and dry

I put the emphasis under “can be” because, thankfully, there are other criteria at play for something to qualify as conspicuous consumption in the social media age.

“Intent is huge,” says Justine Rapp Farrell, a professor and chair of the marketing department at the University of San Diego's Knauss School of Business. Sharing, say, pictures of a head spa because you think others might enjoy it is different than sharing pictures of a head spa because you’re showing off that you’re among the few that can.

Classification becomes tricky, though, because intent on social media, in particular, can easily be misconstrued, both by the person posting and the people viewing the post.

“Much of social media is tangled up in portraying one's idealized self, which is often conspicuous for their audiences,” Farrell says.

Of course, absent your reasoning for snapping and sharing, “we all have a right to consume,” she adds. Which brings us to another question.

Is conspicuous consumption even that bad?

Veblen was certainly being critical in his book, but — and maybe I’m just trying to make myself feel better — depending on who you talk to, there are about as many arguments for conspicuous consumption as there are against it.

Some pros:

  • It stimulates the economy.

  • It helps you network and thrive.

  • It encourages quality and innovation.

  • It’s fun!

Some cons:

  • It’s wasteful.

  • It reinforces wealth and social inequality.

  • It depletes natural resources (i.e., bad for the environment).

  • It’s anxiety-inducing.

Your stomach for some of those bullet points will vary, depending on your philosophies and values, but from an individualistic perspective at least, it helps to be aware of when you’re consuming conspicuously, if only because it can cause you to overspend and undergo financial strain.

To do so, “run a fast three-part filter,” Shirshikov suggests. “Audience, Scarcity, Narrative. Who am I hoping notices? What is in short supply here: money, time, reach, taste? What narrative am I creating for myself? If all three signal status, it’s obvious.”

It’s also helpful to recognize when others might be consuming conspicuously so that you don’t get (intentionally or unintentionally) nudged into splurging on something you wouldn’t otherwise. Speaking of which …

As for the Head Spa

10/10, would recommend!

I took some other pictures, but I won’t share them. Maybe I don’t want to cede any moral high ground to Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. Maybe this well-produced Instagram video from Rivieree itself provides a better idea of the experience.

Either way, something to noodle on.

RECEIPTS

Long Branch: The Return

Teddy and I went back to Long Branch, New Jersey, last week, and, even though I was aware of its inflated prices, I was surprised … by its inflated prices.

Case in point: I spent $9 on “the smallest possible serving of ice cream” — my exact words, when ordering — at Coney Waffle, Ice Cream and Sweet Shop. That was $7 for the ice cream, which, quick tip, you’re better off supersizing, and $2 to a rather persuasive tip jar (positioned below a sign reading “Teenage girls have dreams!”), even though I know gratuities for cashiers are not mandatory.

They had me at “TCNJ,” my alma mater. Teenage girls have dreams great marketing instincts.

PRICE TAGS

Strange collaborations edition

Do not mention Labubus. Do not mention Labubus. Do not mention …

🍩 $9.98

for a pair of donut-shaped sponges from — you guessed it — Dunkin’ Donuts and Scrub Daddy. They look delicious.

🩸$54

for a Dexter-inspiredKill Tools” brush set from Lethal Cosmetics, a vegan and cruelty-free makeup brand based in Germany.

🏎 $68

for a moveable(!) race car bangle from jeweler Alex & Ani, part of an off-the-beaten-path, but, TBH, pretty ingenious Hot Wheels collaboration.

😈 $98

for a pair of Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice sunglasses from charitable eyewear brand Diff, currently out of stock due to … popular demand?

🦖 $144

for a Jurassic World: Rebirth skin survival kit from Scarlet Johansson’s skincare company The Offset; sorry to ScarJo, but this feels a little bit like trying to make fetch happen, no?

🐊 $1,350

for a pair of Hardcrocs™, a signature set in a longstanding collection between casual footwear creator Crocs and high-end designer Balenciaga.

FRESH GREEN

Nowadays, most financial takes are boilerplate. These aren't.

  • Investors are bearish, but stock continues to rise.

  • Houses aren’t selling, but their prices refuse to fall.

  • In case you stumble upon and find yourself falling for DeBeers’ big fit pitch about how lab-grown diamonds are somehow inferior to their chemically identical natural counterparts, just remember the jewelry company is essentially the reason three-month-salary engagement rings exist in the first place. (Sing it with me: I think I’ve seen this film before …)

THIRST TRAP

And, finally, today, in things I would buy my husband if I could, you know, just buy my husband things …

Touchdown

Screenshot from Jacobandco.com.

Not that my husband needs another theoretical watch, given that, you know, I just fake-bought him one, but, if he did, I’d definitely go for this $3M Jacob & Co. Billionaire Mini Ashoka timepiece, which has been making the internet rounds after a video surfaced of Tom Brady gifting it to his 15-year-old son.

Made of 18K white gold and 100.57 carats worth of diamonds. In the words of Benjamin Brady: “Feels shiny.”

Got questions, comments, receipts, tips, thirst traps, etc. you’d like to share? Send them to [email protected].

This article is for educational purposes only. We don’t recommend or advise individuals to buy, not buy, sell, or not sell particular investments or other assets, as everyone’s circumstances are different. Also, it’s your money and ultimately up to you to decide the best use for it.

Keep Reading

No posts found