Planned Obsolescene

Recently I sat down to watch the first episode of the BBC2 documentary 'The men who made us spend'. The programme attempts to find out the reasons why we as consumers continue to buy products, even though we have similar ones that work completely fine. Investigating the consumerism and the people who try to make us spend, the documentary aims to show us the tricks of the trade, and why these make you want to keep spending your money.

The first episode of this 3-part documentary looks at the issue of planned obsolescence; the idea that manufacturers will purposely created a product with a shorted life-span so that consumers will buy a new one. This of course acts as a catalyst for these money makers, as ensures they will continue to make their money, even when people have already purchased. This makes perfect sense to me from the companies point of view; "It's much harder as a brand to get someone to buy a brand for the first time". This quote stuck in my head from my lecture on 'what is a brand?' by Si Beales and Chris Macdonald, and I really can apply this to the idea of planned obsolescence. Once customers have purchased a product for the first time, they become more familiar with it and so are more likely to buy again. But why does this apply even if that product had broken? Why would the consumer want to buy a faulty product again, and should it be legal for companies to continue to use planned obsolescence?

 Planned obsolescence first got brought to the public's attention during 1924, when light companies joint together to create a Phoebus Cartel. This worked as a way to increase sales, whilst lowering the life-span of these light bulbs magnificently to only 1000 hours. This meant that the public would have to buy more frequently, therefore making the companies more money. Any light companies involved in this cartel had regular tests, and if any bulbs were found to have longer than 1000 hours of life, they were fined accordingly, ensuring that all manufacturers kept to their promise. Sales increased by double for all parties involved in the cartel over 5 years, but was this fair? Should it have been alright for the producers of these bulbs to trick the public into believing that these bulbs would actually be better quality whilst getting more money out of them and surly they are not still using these 

This issue of planned obsolescence stood out as the most shocking part of the documentary and really got me thinking about companies and how they will do anything to make money, even if it does mean tricking their loyal companies. However, it is still possible that companies could be using a version of planned obsolescence today. Researchers have found that products such as ink cartridges have been programmed to say that they are empty and need to be replaced, even if they are not. Some of these cartridges when reset by professionals can actually go through this process three times before actually having no ink left! I think that this is completely ridiculous and should not be legal for companies to do this. In my opinion, this is a form of scamming customers, making them spend unnecessary money. 

 Even one of the most successful brands to date, Apple, has been suggested to use a form of planned obsolescence. Large companies, such as Apple, often use large and expensive advertisements to make you invest in their products. But once you have bought, how are they going to ensure you keep purchasing. The Neistat brothers suggested that using planned obsolescence has allowed Apple the ability to do this. After buying and owning an iPod himself, Casey Naistats Ipod lost battery very quickly, and he wanted to know if Apple could do anything about this. After talking to a representative, he was told that there was nothing they could do as the battery would begin to run after owning it for 18 months. Outraged, Casey and his brother created a campaign to make the public aware of this, creating a video showing them graffiting over the top of all the Ipod adverts they could find in NYC. The video went viral, why not take a look!

 Apple are still criticised today for their suspected use of planned obsolescence, for example with their iPhones. After the release of the iPhone 4, the models were unable to be taken apart unprofessionally to replace a battery, meaning if there was an issue, the customer would have to send directly to Apple, costing the consumer money of course. Apple even designed their own screw which had never been seen before to hold the phone together, deliberately so that no one apart from the Apple team could attempt to repair the phone. I think that although this is a clever move from the company, it really does suggest their ideologies towards customers, showing how they obviously do not care about offering reliable products to their loyal customers. 

 But why do we keep buying these products, even though we know in a year or so we will have to spend more money for a new one? Is it the want for the new colour or shape? Or is it just that we don't want to be left behind or seen as 'unfashionable' by not having the newest version? Watching this documentary has definitely got me thinking about the quality of these so-called 'best' technology companies and has really made me reconsider buying from them again.

I really do hope that more is done to product consumers from becoming victims of this, and hopefully more of the public are made aware of the companies who are doing this so they can avoid being targeted. Could this spread past electronics and move towards fashion? Will clothing manufacturers and designers start using weaker and lower quality fabrics so that they rip, tear or wear more easily, making them have to continuously make new purchases, or are they already doing this? It's an issue which investigators will continue to work on to try and solve and I hope that something more serious is done about it sooner. 

#fcpreflection