The Men That Make Us Spend---With Planned Obsolescense

Without Prejudice

From Wiki

Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time.[1] The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases, (referred to as shortening the replacement cycle).
Firms that pursue this strategy believe that the additional sales revenue it creates more than offsets the additional costs of research and development and opportunity costs of existing product line cannibalization. The rewards are by no means certain: in a competitive industry, this can be a risky strategy because consumers may decide to buy from competitors.
Planned obsolescence tends to work best when a producer has at least an oligopoly.[2]Before introducing a planned obsolescence, the producer has to know that the consumer is at least somewhat likely to buy a replacement from them. In these cases of planned obsolescence, there is an information asymmetry between the producer – who knows how long the product was designed to last – and the consumer, who does not. When a market becomes more competitive, product lifespans tend to increase.[citation needed] For example, when Japanese vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products.[3]

In other words we the consumer are hoodwinked into thinking that a certain item is not as durable as we first thought. And yet it is..

Watching The Men Who Made Us Spend on what we desire is an eye opener in its duplicity. Duplicity we accept, unquestioningly. For example, in the past a certain company makes a certain light bulb that will last 10,000 hours. All good. For a while. But the up front cost is minimal, so how does the company make more of a profit ? It decides that the bulb from then on the will only last 1,000 hours and the consumer then has to keep on buying replacement bulbs. Clever ? Profit making ? Definitely yes.

Or we are coaxed into believing that we " need" an updated car, computer, phone. That consumer psychology buys into our desire to be " Better than the Jones's. ". For example the IPhone could not be bettered than when it first came out. 
The technology. 

But to make a profit Apple decided to bring out a new version every so often. The basic technology was the same as the first with an addition of one or two new " things ". Nothing to write home about. But if you bought the " new " I Phone the main thing that changed was the Colour !

The same as the basic premise of a car. The car was, is perfect just as it was when it first came out. Wheels, engine, a fifties car pretty much perfection. So how did the car manufacturers sell more cars. They decided to buy into our psychology of loving newer, shinier, brighter. So they decided to bring out a new version, every year. However, the main thing that changed every year was the colour ! 
You no doubt have seen the new ad for Jeep. 
A line man is pictured out in the wild at the top of a mountain. 

" I bought a Jeep" he yells to no one. 
Another males voice replies from the other side of the vast valley ( unseen ) 

" Me too " 

" What colour ? " yells the one mountain climbing man to the other.

It's clever in it's simplicity and I am sure the ad agency is being ironic, the wilds of nature, a man shouting out his pride in his new Jeep. And a voice answering. But after watching the Men That Make Us Spend, I view the ad in a new way.

We have been led to believe that we " need " a car a year. A car will last for years and years if looked after. So we don't need a new one every year or every few years. But we are as just as much to blame. Bad big business blah blah, yawn.

We as consumers, have bought into the idea that newer shinier is better. Makes us look fashionable. I can't stand four wheel drives anymore, even though I have had one. They are so big, most times with a single person in them charging around. Usually a Mother driving to Coles to pick up bread. They clog up the roads, they clog up the car parks, big tonnes of engineering, costing a quarter of a house and guzzling up energy.

To be fair, it can be a status symbol and there is nothing wrong with that. You know what they say, " Buy the most expensive car your ego can afford. " 
But often we feel that we need to be different, to show we can afford the biggest, the best, the red one instead of the Yellow one. The gold diamond encrusted version that is basically no different to the last umpteenth " updated " version. All that is required is your cash. 

Apple was canny in that they made their phone batteries have an obsolete life span. They built into the battery a component that made the battery die in eighteen months. " Built In " so the consumer rings Apple and guess what ? A new battery costs 250 dollars and the Customer Service recommends buying a new phone for $400. Why not? 

But here is the kicker, the battery is still fine, probably could last years if you take out the component that gives it a limited life span. Phone repair techs know this and can undo the component. Bypass the planned obsolescence. Apple became a wake up to that so invented their own screws that the phone techs had no tool for. There was no design need to change the phone screws, it was simply to stop consumers having control over the phone.

So the canny phone tech reverse engineered the screw and made a screw driver for these new and unusual screws. A five point head, tiny. 

The phone tech said Apple seemed to be making the screws smaller and smaller as the new " thinner " phones appeared. Slimline. Once again the basic technology can't be improved on only the cosmetic, so, thinner, blacker, a mirrored surface were considered " The next big thing " and we the consumer thought we " needed" that. The buying into our need as humans to fit in, be accepted. But we are being duped. 

Those ad Managers have to get paid somehow. Budgets for research and development have to be found. And yet the basic phone is already here. Has been for years. 

We the consumers have to take a long hard look at what we desire and why. Is a an inanimate object going to change our lives ? For the better ? The Latin phrase Caveat Emptor never holds more true than now. It is up to us as Consumers to exercise our rights, flex our spending muscles, or not flex, it's a choice. 

So an older clean car will go forever if looked after. In fact more so than the newer cars with their computer driven components. The first thing that goes on a newish car is the computer. It's not something for the non mechanic. An expert has to fix it. Time, stress, money. 

The past is recalled with nostalgia, wind down windows, simply fixed engineering problems. Most men can overhaul a car from top to bottom and save a lot of money in the process. And enjoy the work. 

So planned obsolescence is wrong, it adds to our stress levels for no need except to make money for advertising agencies, as I said, the money for the salaries have to come from somewhere. Imagine if there were no ad agencies. The clever commercials we watch would not exist. The Bingle clever little loans has funny quirky crazy ads and we laugh and enjoy them. But the interest rates on those loans is    prohibitive.

So not so funny and quirky after all.
Remember that the next time you turn on your 51 inch T.V.




Popular Posts