Planned Obsolesence

Jenny - posted on 01/07/2011 ( 4 moms have responded )




Is planned obsolesence ethical? Is it an acceptable way, by you, to do business?
In the 1930s an enterprising engineer working for General Electric proposed increasing sales of flashlight lamps by increasing their efficiency and shortening their life. Instead of lasting through three batteries he suggested that each lamp last only as long as one battery. In 1934 speakers at the Society of Automotive Engineers meetings proposed limiting the life of automobiles. These examples and others are cited in Vance Packard's classic book The Waste Makers.

By the 1950s planned obsolescence had become routine and engineers worried over the ethics of deliberately designing products of inferior quality. The conflict between profits and engineering objectives were apparent. 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 an editorial in Design News toward the end of the fifties, E. S. Safford asked whether engineers should resist the philosophy of planned obsolescence if their management commissioned a 'short-term product' and argued that they should not: "Planned existence spans of product may well become one of the greatest economic boosts to the American economy since the origination of time payments." What was required, he argued was "a new look at old engineering ethics". Instead of trying to build the best, the lightest, the fastest and the cheapest, engineers should be able to apply their skills to building shoddy articles that would fall apart after a short amount of time, all in the interests of the market.

The editorial prompted a wide response. Several engineers wrote in to add their agreement. According to Packard, "the majority of engineers and executives reacting to the editorial, however, seemed angry and bewildered. They appeared to have little enthusiasm for the 'new ethics' they were being invited to explore." They objected because planned obsolescence gave engineering a bad name, because it cheated customers who were not informed of the death-date of the product, and because it directed creative engineering energies toward short-term market ends rather than more lofty and ambitious engineering goals.

Today when protecting the environment is such a priority goal, the question of product life and durability is again a critical question. Clearly the rate at which modern societies turn over equipment, automobiles, white goods and other items has a cost both in terms of resource use as well as waste and pollution. Yet our economic systems still seem to rely on the consumption that this constant turnover requires.

In August this year the business magazine Fortune reported on how planned obsolescence is becoming "increasingly sophisticated". In a column, Paul Lukas describes how "many manufacturers, no longer content to spur repeat sales simply by making consumer goods that break down or wear out, now offer products that tell the consumer when they're breaking down or wearing out." For example, Gillette's new shaving cartridge has a blue stripe that fades indicating it needs replacing, whether it does in fact or not. In InfoWorld magazine columnist Ed Foster suggests that the computer industry often makes relatively recent computer systems obsolete by discontinuing parts or accessories for them.

In 1994 Management Accounting invited readers to respond to a case study in planned obsolescence. The accounting people whose responses were published were opposed to redesigning a durable quality product to have a shorter life. However they weren't so much concerned about the ethics of planned obsolescence so much as the possible outcomes for the hypothetical company cited in the case study, which had a solid reputation for high quality products. They warned of the poor public and customer relations that could follow and questioned the wisdom of large investment in redesign of a good product rather diversification of products.

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?

This conversation has been closed to further comments


View replies by

Isobel - posted on 01/08/2011




absolutely it would be better for the environment...AND more expensive...unfortunately our society is obsessed with finding the lowest price and not the best value.

April - posted on 01/08/2011




It would be better for the environment if things were more durable. Every time you buy a are not just purchasing more of the are also using up paper (from the cash register) and using gas every time you have to make a trip to the store to replace something that no longer works.

Plus, you know what pisses me off? Toys that come with batteries already installed and then after a week of using the toy, the batteries are dead. Last Christmas, my son got about 10 battery operated toys and ALL of the toys decided to stop working within a week!! I don't know if these batteries are some cheapo batteries designed to force you to go out and buy batteries anyway???

Isobel - posted on 01/08/2011




the quicker the death rate, the cheaper it is to make it...and therefore the lower the price...I don't think it's as sinister as it sounds

Nicole - posted on 01/08/2011




Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing it.
I would say that products should be made to the best quality they can, and if they are to have short shelf lives they should be made to break down in an eco-friendly way.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms