Planned Obsolescence

In The Concept and Measurement of Product Quality (1976), researcher E. Scott Maynes observed that quality is subjective, dependent on consumer preferences. New technology may offer “better quality” but something old may demonstrate durability. The consumer must decide which of these characteristics is more valuable.

A culture of austerity emerged after the Great Recession (2008–2014). This has been replaced by a culture of efficiency = minimized costs. Elon Musk (1971 – ) is the primary promotor of the culture of efficiency, aided by Mark Zuckerberg (1984 – ) and Jeff Bezos (1964 – ). Dark factories = robots and automated systems have replaced humans.

It is 2025, efficiency means nothing is made to be appreciated, only to be bought, then discarded. Product pessimism makes everything new seem inferior. In part this is because the promise of capitalism has been withdrawn. Work used to offer a decent life, including house ownership. Increasingly, your house is someone else’s investment. The social elevator that allowed social mobility has broken down, with the Billionaire class increasingly owning more. Social media focuses on lives that are unattainable for most people.

With public services, the situation is different. Part of the difference is that there is no competition, so most services can be provided at or below cost. I remember working at a school that had declared its first profit. The principal announced it with pride and enthusiasm, that lasted until the next day where the school was sued by parents of a special-needs pupil who did not receive the support required, due to profits being prioritized over required services.

In most democratic countries, health care is provided to residents. This costs about 35% less than the services provided in a for-profit system. Of course, the system has to be dimensioned appropriately. Systems have to evolve and adapt to social expectations. Currently, demographic changes in the number of elderly, is creating an increased need for health care. A market based system will not improve the situation, only increase its costs.

There’s one conclusion that comes up repeatedly throughout this report: the perception that everything is of lower quality is more pronounced among older people. The reasons are varied. One is that attributes like durability — which used to be a major factor in how people judged a product’s quality — have lost relevance.

Longevity is an important issue with me. Until we purchased our last vehicle, I always used ten years as a benchmark for its life span. With our first three cars, we needed to trade in our vehicles to afford a new one. With the next three cars, we could afford to give them away. However, expectations for our last vehicle, a VW ID. Buzz, is that it should last a century. Of course it may be necessary to install new batteries, and make other technical changes such as adding all-wheel drive.

In addition I am married to someone who has an in depth understanding of textiles. She understands fabrics, and provides me with all of my shirts and sweaters. I dislike discarding clothing that is not completely worn out. I have no use for a fast fashion industry that encourages impulse purchases. I attempt to develop an emotional attachment to all of my garments. I can afford to develop respect for them, because I hope to develop an emotional attachment with that garment, that will last a lifetime.

I don’t follow fashion, but wear what I appreciate. I hope that the clothing that I have not worn out can be used by others, particularly relatives. One point of contention is that my religion stipulates that my dead body should be wrapped in silk. I find that extravagant.

Similarly, I have a concern about food, avoiding as much processed food as possible. Once again, I appreciate being married to someone who understands food preparation.

The dissonance between who we are now and who we used to be is reinforced by an even more powerful tension: the gap between who we are and who we want to be. While it’s only natural to blame multinational corporations for maximizing profit margins at the expense of consumers, and governments whose budget cuts have strangled already depleted public services, market logic is hard to dispute: things are worse, because they are exactly where the billionaire class wants them to be. Purchasing power has been taken from workers. At the moment, automobiles are a luxury. People are holding on to their old cars because they cannot afford to replace them.

A century ago, in 1924, the American automobile market began reaching saturation point. To maintain sales, General Motors Vice President Alfred P. Sloan Jr. (1875 – 1966) suggested annual model-year design changes to convince car owners to buy new replacements each year. This development was headed by Harley Earl (1893 – 1969). Smaller companies could not maintain the pace and expense of yearly re-styling. Henry Ford preferred simplicity and economies of scale and design integrity. Thus, GM surpassed Ford’s sales in 1931. However, frequent design changes also made it necessary to use a body-on-frame structure rather than the lighter unibody approach.

Bernard London (c. 1872-5 – ?) first used the term planned obsolescence in a pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence (1932). He wanted governments to impose use-by dates on consumer products. The term was popularized by American industrial designer Brooks Stevens (1911 – 1995), in a talk at an advertising conference in Minneapolis in 1954. Yes, I have previously written a weblog post about Stevens. I had ended the post with: Stevens acknowledged the fact that all of his designs were ephemeral. He envisioned good design as changing from year to year, to adapt to new technologies and new tastes.

In 1959 Volkswagen mocked the term planned obsolescence in an 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. We don’t change a car for the sake of change.

Cultural critic Vance Packard (1914 – 1996) wrote The Waste Makers (1960), it exposed 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 = psychological obsolescence = marketers’ attempts to wear out a product in the owner’s mind, quoting industrial designer George Nelson: 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”!

The other sub category is obsolescence of function. the reduction of an object’s usefulness or desirability because of an outdated design feature that cannot be easily changed or updated. Returning to Buzz as an example, VW’s batteries represented a near state-of-the-art when they were made in 2023. However, by 2033 solid-state batteries should be available that should reduce cost, mass and charging time, and increase range. Thus, it might be time to install these. My intention is that Buzz should last a century, although not in Trish’s ownership all that time. At the century mark, 2123-02-13, my grandson, Quinn, will be 97 and some months old, almost time for him to transfer ownership to someone in a younger generation.

Juan Villoro (1968 – ) in No soy un robot (I Am Not a Robot) (2024) comments: Advertising and subliminal messages have turned human beings into zombies with no other goal than consumption. Zombies have no time to waste. They rush around and shop for convenience. Perhaps the best-known example of buying for convenience is paying around €75 per kilo for coffee just because it comes in capsules. People are now digital beings. They have transitioned from McLuhan’s Gutenberg galaxy to the digital galaxy. This affects their perception of reality.

In Crap: A History of Cheap Stuff in America (2022), historian Wendy A. Woloson (1964 – ) asks: When did people stop having standards? She answers that’s it all began in the mid-19th century. Before that, very few people owned many things. Objects were typically multifunctional: a table might serve as a work surface by day and a dinner table by night. Things were cared for and repaired — an old housecoat might become a child’s pair of pants. But as markets expanded and mass production took hold, cheaper and more accessible goods began to appear. People were enchanted by the mix of variety and low price, as if they’d stumbled upon a secret treasure at minimal cost.

Over time, fashion trends fused with cheap products, and buying something new became almost mandatory. There was no longer any excuse not to have the latest thing, because it was within reach of almost everyone. People have embraced this degraded material world, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. The things we need to live our lives are fundamentally cheap and alienating. This overabundance of things makes people poorer. Interactions and ways of thinking have become mediocre: superficial, ephemeral and degraded.

While technology can improve product quality, it can also increase mediocrity and flaws. Yet, consumers openly reject virtual assistants. Society isn’t adapting to the pace of technological advancement.

Some argue that automation improves customer service. Some reject the idea that companies do so to cut costs. Artificial intelligence does not save money or personnel, because the initial investment in technology is extremely high, and the benefits remain practically the same. Yet, a key tool gained from the internet, real opinions from users, has been rendered useless, because it is unknown how many are fake! Reviews may have been generated by robots, to either encourage or discourage purchases, depending on who programmed them.

Bot activity accounts for a substantial portion of internet traffic. This poses a serious problem: language models are trained with data pulled from the web. When these models begin to be fed with information they themselves have generated, it leads to a model collapse.

The production and purchase of low-quality products is not sustainable. A good product contributes something useful to the environment.