http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01zxmrv/the-men-who-made-us-spend-episode-1 You will to be in the UK or behind a UK based VPN A random review I googled http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...Us-Spend-BBC-Two-review-very-heavyhanded.html
I can see how lots of people will glance over this and discount it as socialist propaganda from the review if you are that narrow minded and miss some interesting points from episode 1 Corporations colluding to make inferior products and planned obsolecence to increase proffits How the creation of computer aided design (autocad) segmented and expanded the markets The dynamics of consumer goods chaning from need and utility to perceived need of fashionable objects with less function Episode two, which I haven't watched yet is about human emotion and how we are manipulated in order to get us to consume more.
At what point in history did this happen? With increasing wealth comes an increasing capacity to spend on luxury items. Once life's basics are met, excess income can be spent on the pleasures of life. It's a natural progression and one that has only marginally to do with manipulation of spending habits and corporate collusions, so I will not be watching it and therefore will remain narrow minded.
Concerning the OP, McDonalds refers to its best customers as 'heavy users'. I suppose that makes me a 'recreational user'. I find planned obsolescence extremely offensive, akin to theft with numerous victims.
What items would you like to keep for 5 or 10 or more years before having to replace them? I call BS on planned obsolescence conspiracies. It's most likely that we replace goods because of functional or fashionable obsolescence.
I tend to like to watch a wide variety of things, even bullshit anti-capitalistic propaganda that completely misses the point, but I reach saturation on many topics quite quickly. In the case of this one, it is probably interesting enough, but the review and the premise lead me to believe that it is essentially a nonsensical rant against "waste" etc. A couple of points: 1. Collusion never works for any sustained period of time in capitalism without resorting to the use force by government. 2. "Inferior" is a very loaded word. What is inferior for one person may be superior for another. In the case of goods there are a range of attributes that people desire not just longevity. 3. Increased profits is a good thing. It means that more value has been created. I don't understand what you mean by this but it sounds good. Shiney! answered this sufficiently. Importantly "manipulation" to consume more is pointless unless someone is actually producing more. The ability to consume more is awesome as it means we are all richer.
I stumbled across this article by Lew Rockwell this morning which is on this topic. Full article is worth a read as well.
I dont buy this conspiracy theory about companies deliberately making shotty products to make extra profit. simply because consumers will consider quality of a product before they make a purchase. Companies that screw their customers would surely go out of business. Number of logic/examples here. U get what u pay for. Eg u can buy some cooking pots from kmart for $1 each and they might last a few years. By that stage most people would want to replace them anyway. However if you want something that last generations. Then u can go all out and buy a Le Creuset for a few hundred bucks. Do cars last longer than they use to? I sure think so because consumers value quality in cars so companies try to make longer lasting cars. Where as for things like a toilet brush, consumer would just want to buy something cheap and replace it in a year. Companies making expensive toilet brush that last decades would go out of business. As for technology. My old nokia is still perfectly capable of making phone calls and my old pc still works. They are good quality but I chose to replace them obviously due to rapid advances in technology. So I think those who attribute poor quality products to greedy companies, consipracy and capitalism are just silly and dont connect the dots, some of them are just outright communists
I believe it's called market research, and marketing respectively. Re the "perceived need of fashionable objects with less function" ; if that's what the target market wants, that's what they get if the researchers do their job properly. In this specific case you quoted the marketing is obviously targeted at trend followers rather than value based purchasers, the former is much easier to make a quick buck from rather than the latter, and there will always be plenty in that category with cash burning a hole in their pocket.
Manipulation and conspiracy aside, what I find interesting is looking at the bigger picture and analysing consumerist lifestyle the we find ourselves stuck in. How much better off are we in this pursuit of luxury items after we satisfy our basic human needs. Well is this really a natural progression? For the majority of the developed world our life expectancy and standard of living is much better than an Egyptian Pharaoh, are equally happier for it? I would say an element of this is human nature to want to improve our lot in life to be comfortable however, this drive is manipulated by marketing/researchers by making us feel inadequate to which the solution they tell us is to buy shit we don't need and our problems will be fixed. So we get stuck in this endless loop of working so we can consume more, get into to debt ....... consume some more. Are we really ? And this is the result we get, we are up to our eyeballs in debt in order to perpetuate our ponzi economy. We need growth, 2 to 3% growth or gonna die trying
The sad reality is how this contributes to landfill and manufacturing pollution. Personally I'll pay more for something that lasts longer due to being made with better materials. Sometimes this is not available on the market where it once was (or had the potential to be), and though explicit collusion is unrealistic, corporate culture promotes it enough to shape the market. Profits come from consumables, and product design follows this mantra often enough, including where the product line is unlikely to be radically improved during it's mean time to failure. Many improvements are purely stylistic or largely superfluous (do I really need wifi on my fridge?), though that generally reflects the nature it's target consumer. I'm far more concerned with the core function and longevity than the bells and whistles used as sales motivators. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbbF3oxf-E[/youtube] Printers are another major example. I'd prefer to decide myself when it's time to replace one than have a chip count my usage and stop working by design of the manufacturer. Educational texts being revised in fields with no breakthroughs in the last decade to avoid resale by students is a blatant example. I refuse to buy any battery powered device that I can't easily replace the battery without paying a technician to do so (iPhone, anyone?) Wherever this is done by design, a company loses my business.
I thought you were leaving manipulation and conspiracy aside? :lol: If you buy stuff you don't need because someone told you you need it, then I think you've got a problem, it's not manipulation or a conspiracy, it's marketing and it's your choice. The alternative is to not have any choice and just be presented with a limited supply of goods for consumption that have been pre-approved for purchase by your local authority. Whose water heater, fridge, freezer, stove, washing machine, dishwasher, car doesn't last 5 - 10 years? If we do replace them we often replace with them a unit that runs far more efficiently. What parts?
Just a quick heads up for those wanting to watch this, it's available on YouTube I'm watching it now because I have some rare spare time and it's actually quite interesting
