Since 1962, the speed with which new models of consumer goods proliferate has accelerated dramatically. The automobile industry pioneered planned obsolescence; it continues to push that strategy today. People who purchase a car can select from more than 1000 models. Nike offers a clear picture of how planned obsolescence has evolved. The first Nike shoe had a promotional life of seven years. By 1989, the marketing cycle was down to ten months (McQueen 2003, p. 187). Now, Nike creates 250 new shoe designs each season. The Swiss company that manufactures Swatch watches creates 140 different watch styles each year (Jenkins 1998). I doubt a new model watch is much more accurate than the model that preceded it. According to Jeffrey Madrick the Gap retail chain revamps its product line every six weeks, and changes its advertising frequently as well (Madrick 1998, p. 32). The Productscan Online database counted 33,678 new food, beverage, health and beauty aids, household and pet products introduced during 2003, up from less than 22,000 in 1994 (Productscan 2003). Madrick reported that the number has increased fifteen- and twenty-fold since 1970 (Madrick 1998, p. 32). Relatively few of these new products actually represent an improvement; instead, they are marketing strategies. In a sense, some of the style changes are actually intended to limit the variety of products available to the public. While companies, such as Nike, go to great lengths to shower markets with a wide array of products, part of their strategy is to limit competition by filling the shelves with as many varieties as possible in order to preclude stores from stocking products from other brands. Let me drop that matter now and consider some of the other consequences of planned obsolescence. According to the rhetoric of consumer sovereignty this wide array of choices benefits the customer. The reality is somewhat different. Consider the 250 new shoe designs that Nike creates each season. From my personal perspective, this quest for novelty is quite detrimental. Writing as an aging basketball player with tender feet, I know that if I find a pair of shoes that fits well, I will never again be able to find a replacement with the precise feel and fit, since the style that I buy today will soon be discontinued. So, every time my shoes wear out, I must begin another search for a shoe that feels comfortable. Alas, in the end, consumer sovereignty turns out to be a quite constricted form of sovereignty -- perhaps especially for those of us with tender feet. These "search efforts" represent a serious cost. John Helliwell, an economist who has studied the relationship between economics and happiness, noted: "psychological studies show that increasing the range of product choice becomes costly to buyers at a fairly early stage: they find it harder to make decisions when faced with many alternatives, take longer to reach their decisions, and are more likely to later regret their decisions" (Helliwell 2002, p. 34). For example, two psychologists set up tasting booths in an upscale grocery store, offering the opportunity to taste a number of jams -- either 6 or 24. In the case of the 6-jam experiment, 40 percent of shoppers stopped to have a taste and, of those, 30 percent proceeded to purchase a jam. In the 24-jam experiment, a full 60 percent stopped to taste, but only 3 percent actually purchased a product. They described this difference as a "phenomenon of choice overload [in which] .... people ... are burdened by the responsibility of distinguishing good from bad decisions (Iyengar and Lepper 2000, pp. 1003-04). Obviously, this problem is even more true when the commodity involves a more complex set of considerations than the taste of a jam sample. Think of the intense study required to select the best HMO plan. I doubt that many people find that experience particularly pleasurable. So, in many, if not most cases, the number of new varieties offer no substantial advantage -- just a variation in style. In fact, some companies are now finding that a reduction in the choices that they offer consumers actually increases sales (Iyengar and Lepper 2000).
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901