Your toaster will self-destruct

Recently I was sitting in an airport listening to a discussion about a design and manufacturing strategy called planned obsolescence. This term refers to the practice of intentionally developing and marketing products with a limited lifespan. Planned failures compel consumers to purchase replacement products sooner than would be necessary otherwise. This affords the manufacturer more predictable demand and ensures long-term product sales.

Most consumers take a dim view of this practice. Planned obsolescence relies partly on reducing material and manufacturing costs and partly on the buyer overestimating the expected life, and thus the value, of the product. As a result, consumers often feel that it is deceitful and suspicious. Intentionally designing products to fail or become undesirable quickly also wastes time, money, energy and natural resources, and it is not an environmentally sustainable practice. This is an additional cause for concern for many people.

Although I have known about this strategy for many years, I had not given it serious thought. Upon reflection, I concluded that we, as consumers, probably accord the practice of planned obsolescence far more credit than it deserves. I have three reasons for believing this.

First, the reality is that unplanned obsolescence is a much more powerful force in the universe than the planned variety. Entropy, friction, wear and other losses cannot be eliminated. They can only be managed and minimized. Everything wears out. Everything corrodes and fatigues. Eventually, everything needs to be replaced. The question is only how long these processes will take and whether other forces will cause obsolescence before the products naturally fail.

Today, technology is evolving faster than most products can wear out. There is no benefit to making a computer that will last 20 years, because it will be obsolete in five. This is true even for relatively mature industries. Cars don`t change much from year to year. It is possible to make a car last 20 years without too much difficulty. But some aspects of the design, especially safety features, are still evolving faster than cars wear out, which motivates new car sales. Consumer preferences also frequently evolve faster than products can be used up. Clothes, cell phones and other consumer items are often replaced before they wear out or become technologically obsolete.

Second, it is relatively easy for consumers to mistake bad engineering and design for planned obsolescence. The end result is often the same - a broken or exhausted product. The difference is in the designer`s intent. Designing high-quality, robust and reliable products is both difficult and expensive. All students in their first design class learn that it`s easy to make something that works once, but difficult to make something that works properly every time, and for a very long period. As a result, planned obsolescence may seem to be more prevalent than it actually is.

In addition, what may be a disadvantage to one consumer may be a benefit to another. Non-traditional colors for hair dye (green, blue, pink, purple, etc.) are only available in a semi-permanent form. The longest-lasting colored dye on the U.S. market begins to fade in three to six weeks. Is this a form of planned obsolescence? Is this a conspiracy to force customers to buy more hair dye? I think it`s far more likely that this was an intentional choice for the benefit of customers who want to change their hair color frequently and need to touch up their roots every six weeks anyway.

The final reason that planned obsolescence is overestimated is that it`s a risky business. The revenue loss from customer backlash due to poor quality may be greater than the increased profits from a planned obsolescence strategy. And, there is a very high risk that a competitor will make a higher-quality product for a comparable price, thus winning over the existing customer base. Many companies heavily base their business strategy on quality and will refuse to manufacture or market a product with an intentionally reduced estimated life.

Most designers are probably not directly involved in planned obsolescence. Instead, they share the same major concern as consumers: value. How many resources should be spent on development of a product? How much money should be spent on raw materials? How much effort should be spent on quality control? These costs associated with production must be balanced by the price and life cycle of the product to produce something that has good value for both the company and the consumer. Essentially, it is a problem of value engineering. There are probably relatively few cabals planning when your toaster will break. Most designers and engineers work very hard to give you quality appliances for reasonable prices, while balancing the unknowns associated with changes in the economy, in technology and in society, and fighting the ever present battle against the ravages of time.





Mary Kathryn Thompson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. She can be reached at mkthompson@an.kaist.ac.kr. - Ed.