The significance of the filament bulb
Developed well over one hundred years ago and now phased out of use the filament bulb pays an interesting role in the development of planned obsolescence. In 1923 P J Brewer of British Thompson Hewson, a manufacturer of many different sorts of electrical goods including light bulbs, had the idea that sales of light bulbs could be increased by making them more efficient, they would glow more brightly and hence be attractive to customers but last for a shorter time, requiring customers to buy more bulbs. He shared this idea with other light bulb manufacturers, and this resulted in the formation of the Phoebus Cartel in 1924 in which manufacturers from across Europe agreed to limit the average life of a light bulb to 1000 hours. If a manufacturer produced bulbs that lasted longer that 1000 hours they would be fined by the Phoebus Cartel During life of the cartel, up to the beginning of WW2, the average life of a light bulb decreased from 2500 hours to 1000 hours.
The idea gains ground
The activities of the Phoebus Cartel were secret, but the idea gained traction during the 1930’s in the USA. The idea was that in response to the Great Depression the economy could be revitalised if products had a shorter life. Hence new products could come onto the market as old ones broke down and this would maintain and increase spending, jump starting a devasted economy. Aldous Huxley was critical of this idea in his book Brave New World, a story about a dystopian state where people are indoctrinated to buy new stuff and discard the old. The government policy being summed up as “Every man woman and child is compelled to consume so much a year in the interests of industry. Ending is better the mending.”
Changing attitudes
I can remember from my own childhood in the 50’s and early 60’sthat there was an expectation that what was bought would last and that if it started to wear out or stop working then mending and repair was the order of the day. This applied to shoes, clothes, and electrical goods. Bu the 80’s and 90’s attitudes had changed; people had more money to spend, and consumerism was on the increase. Far fewer things were designed to last, and far more things designed and made with the expectation that they would be thrown away. And it is important to acknowledge the rise of what one might call psychological obsolescence, a desire for the new and the cool. Industrial designers Richard Semour and Dick Powell have also pointed to designing for visceral appeal: “I want it even before I know what it does or what it’s for”. However, some designers are advocating a reverse of this approach and Jack Holloway industrial design lead at Landor and Fitch argues that brands which don’t tackle planned obsolescence face becoming obsolete themselves, noting that we are seeing governments bringing in legislation that is mandating that products be designed with repairability in mind and shareholders that are becoming more environmentally aware and requiring companies to respond accordingly.
The problem of fast tech
Material focus is an organisation dedicated to making it easier for everyone across the UK to fix, donate and recycle their electrical goods and to stop precious resources from being lost forever. They make the analogy between the production, sale and disposal of electrical and electronic good to fast fashion, naming it fast tech. They have reported that in the UK half a billion fast tech items are bought a year with 90 % being thrown away within a year of being purchased which may be seen as a form of obsolescence embedded in the system.
More than just a consumer issue
The argument that planned obsolescence is necessary to provide work for industry and goods for commerce is short sighted in that the result of planned obsolescence is that we are literally using up the Earth’s resources and in so doing causing irrevocable harm to the eco systems on which life on our planet depends.Clearly removing planned obsolescence is a strategy that supports moving to s circular economy.
Educating consumers
Tim Cooper, Emeritus Professor at Nottingham Trent University is clear that if we are to move to a society where products last longer many different stakeholders have a part to play – government, manufacturers, industry, retailers and consumers. He carried out a survey with consumers about how satisfied they were with how long products lasted. To his surprise he found that the overwhelming majority said they were satisfied or very satisfied with how long consumer goods lasted. Consumers don’t expect products to last as long as they did in the past. This creates a problem for industry. Industrial designers know how to design products for longer life and repairability, but such products will inevitably be more expensive than current short life products. If consumers don’t expect or want this then companies that produce such products will fail. Tim argues that consumers need to be educated with regard to their responsibility. And as an advocate of our subject, I would argue that such education can start in the D&T classroom. Here is one suggestion.
Redesigning products to overcome planned obsolesence
The learners’ task is to consider a simple product and decide how it can be improved by thinking about how it might be manufactured, its durability, how it might be maintained and repaired, how it might be disposed of and its sustainability. This involves four steps
1 Make a careful sketch of your chosen product or take and print out a clear digital photograph.
2 Place your sketch or photograph in the middle of an A2 sheet of plain paper and add notes concerning the following;
1. The number of different parts;
2. The shape of each part;
3. The materials used for each part;
4. The way the parts are held together;
5. The use of ready-made components and fixings – screws, nuts and bolts, clips,
6. How easy it is to take apart and rebuild;
7. Parts which might break;
8. Parts which rub together;
9. Ways in which parts are protected from wear and tear;
10. How easy it is to identify the materials used;
11. How suitable the materials are for recycling.
3 Use your notes to make suggestions changes to the design which would lead to the product being:
1. Easier to manufacture;
2. Easier to take apart;
3. More durable;
4. Easier to repair and maintain;
5. Easier to dispose of;
6. More sustainable.
4 Use the suggestions for improvements to produce a clear sketch of a new and improved design.
More information can be found by listening to the radio programme Incandescent: The Phoebus Cartel presented by Shaun Keaveny.
As always comments are welcome, and I hope that members of the Maker Movement will send in their views as to how their advocacy of ownership and repairability challenges planned obsolescence.
HildaRuth and Torben for D&T 