Modern-day consumers have become so accustomed to planned obsolescence that most of us view it as perfectly normal. Computer components and mobile phones are prevalent examples of planned obsolescence in modern culture. Since it’s popularization as the key to economic recovery in the 1930s during the Great Depression, planned obsolescence has become a key component in most product categories from light bulbs to batteries to cars and even buildings.
Origins of planned obsolescence go back at least as far as 1932 with Bernard London's pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence. However, the phrase was first popularized in 1954 by Brooks Stevens, an American industrial designer. Stevens was due to give a talk at an advertising conference in Minneapolis in 1954. Without giving it much thought, he used the term as the title of his talk.
From that point on, "planned obsolescence" became Stevens' catchphrase. By his definition, planned obsolescence was "Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary."
The term was quickly taken up by others, but Stevens' definition was challenged. By the late 1950s, planned obsolescence had become a commonly-used term for products designed to break easily or to quickly go out of style. In fact, the concept was so widely recognized that in 1959 Volkswagen mocked it in a now-legendary advertising campaign. While acknowledging the widespread use of planned obsolescence among automobile manufacturers, Volkswagen pitched itself as an alternative. "We do not believe in planned obsolescence," the ads suggested. "We don't change a car for the sake of change."
In 1960, cultural critic Vance Packard published The Waste Makers, promoted as an exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."
Packard divided planned obsolescence into two sub categories: obsolescence of desirability and obsolescence of function. "Obsolescence of desirability", also called "psychological obsolescence", referred to marketers' attempts to wear out a product in the owner's mind. Packard quoted industrial designer George Nelson, who wrote: "Design is an attempt to make a contribution through change. When no contribution is made or can be made, the only process available for giving the illusion of change is 'styling!'"
By the 1950s planned obsolescence had become commonplace and engineers started raising concerns over the ethical implications of designing products of inferior quality. The bean counters were now competing against the engineers, and today it is blatantly clear who the won the battle. According to Beder (1998) “The fear of market saturation seemed to require such methods to ensure a prosperous economy, yet the consumer was being sold inferior products that could have been made more durable for little extra cost.”
In his book The Waste Makers Vance Packard claims the process wastes resources and exploits customers. Resources are used up making changes, often cosmetic changes that are not of great value to the customer. Supporters, on the other hand, claim it drives technological advances and contributes to material well-being. They claim that a market structure of planned obsolescence and rapid innovation may be preferred to long-lasting products and slow innovation. (wikipedia.org).
In our modern, networked society, potential consumer backlashes might be more likely. This could lead to a loss in a brand’s equity as consumers start to lose respect and trust in such brands. This seemingly places a brand in a catch-22: rapidly innovate, make more money in the short-term and potentially lose long-term brand loyalty and –equity (thereby essentially losing money) or create longer-lasting products with longer-term consumer loyalty but be potentially seen as an outdated brand. In the United Kingdom, planned obsolescence engineered into products is considered a breach of customer rights. The Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards Institute investigate claims of products constantly failing just outside the warranty period
Bernard London argued that “Such a socially responsible system, which is anxious for the well being of all of its citizens, is on a vastly sounder and more permanent basis than one which allows business merely to take out profits without improving the organization with new methods and without renewing the equipment. I maintain that with wealth should go responsibility. Too many nowadays regard wealth as license to freedom and immunity from obligation to the people. Such irresponsible possessors of wealth are shirkers, who tend to make all of us poorer.” How socially responsible is this approach truly in our modern society where we slave away to be able to afford the latest, trendiest model?
In her 1998 article “Is planned obsolescence socially responsible?” Sharon Beder states: “There is a fundamental ethical question involved in designing a death-date into products that goes beyond that of informing consumers. It is about the social responsibility of creating products that have short lives and therefore increase the burden on the planet. The role of engineers in product design is often central. Should engineers be aiming to design more durable commodities?”
According to Carmody et al (2010) “Brand-led consumption places enormous pressure on our already precarious ecological state, and can drive production techniques that exploit both current and future generations”. They further feel strongly that “As strategic and creative communicators we need to help make our conversations smarter as a society. We need to bring to the fore what really matters, to ask tough questions and debate them. We need to hold companies accountable, engage in consumer education and make connectivity a priority. Our concept of Healthy Brand, therefore, is a proposed alternative model for ensuring a far more conscious and direct connection between micro economic sub-systems and broader socio-ecosystems necessary to sustain human dignity and life”.
John Mackey of Wholefoods expresses himself clearly on what he calls Conscious Capitalism (Mackey, 2007: 6). Mackey views profit as not the purpose of doing business but merely the means to an end. Businesses must discover or create its unique purpose and try to fulfill this deeper mission. Mackey furthermore argues that business is not a machine; a view inherited from the twentieth century. In the twenty-first Century business is seen as an interrelated ecosystem: it consists of an interdependent stakeholder community who co-operate voluntarily to create value. The role of leadership is therefore to optimise the system and create value for all its stakeholders. In the long-term this approach will result in increased shareholder value as well, therefore ensuring sustainability because all stakeholders benefit in an eco-system that builds systemically.
It makes sense to apply planned obsolescence-thinking where is will truly add value and improve the lives of people. But Planned Obsolescence should not comfortably be placed under the ambit of innovation when more sinister unhealthy brand practices are being pursued, especially where it leads to conspicuous consumption that places even more pressure on the environment and slowly but surely destroys our social fabric by replacing community with ego-driven individualism.
References:
Bedbury, S. 2002. A new brand world. London: Penguin Putnam Inc.
Beder, S. Is planned obsolescence socially responsible?” Engineers Australia, November 1998, p. 52.
London, B. 1932. Ending the depression through planned obsolescence.
Neumeier, M. 2003. Brand Gap. Berkeley: New Riders.
Mackey, JM. 2008. Conscious Capitalism – Creating a New Paradigm for Business.
Packard, Vance (1978). The Waste Makers. Simon & Schuster.
In 1932, Bernard London wrote, “Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence”, in which he blamed the Great Depression on consumers who use "their old cars, their old radios and their old clothing much longer than statisticians had expected”.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a consumer society that profits from discarding under the logic that the sooner things break the sooner they can be replaced. Production is artificially inflated through intentionally shoddy products while consumption is stimulated through advertisement. The ultimate purpose of all commercial advertising is to persuade people to buy. Since the 1930s, manufacturers have been designing their products to be replaced frequently just as fashion designers keep us buying by making last year’s fashions look outdated. (Perceived obsolescence - fashion and trends)
ReplyDelete