Oxthink

“The washing machine’s stopped working!”

“What’s wrong with it? It’s not that old. We’ve only had it a few years.”

Though the machine in question may vary, the conversation is common and often ends with the purchase of a new appliance.

In a consumption-led economy, goods are designed and produced to encourage their usage. The more we consume, the better the economy performs.

Some people would argue that an unfortunate consequence of this desire for consumption is that products are designed with built-in obsolescence. If a product has a limited lifespan, then the user will need to replace it when it breaks down or wears out. This generates extra business for producers, distributors and retailers. Products are therefore just not built to last. They are actually designed to break down and go wrong.

After all, where is the incentive for making products that last? If a producer makes something that is long-lasting and durable, then they are limiting their future sales. It’s far more profitable to produce something that has a shorter lifespan.

A classic example of this is the light bulb. The longer a light bulb lasts, the less consumers will spend on light bulbs. On this basis, it makes no economic sense. Why would any producer make something that lasts? They would be putting themselves out of business. They are limiting their market size. Sales would eventually dry up.

Another classic example is the production of car tyres. Car tyres are sold on the basis of their performance capabilities – stopping distances, wet-weather performance… They are rarely sold on their durability. They are designed to wear out, requiring replacement.

It’s easy money for those in the tyre industry:

• There are laws stipulating that tyres must not have tread levels below a legal limit.
• Safety concerns will always mean users are mindful of the need to replace their tyres.
• With so many cars being company cars, replacement is an expense that is often not borne by the individual.

A few products do promote themselves on the basis of long-term guarantees and warranties, but these tend to have so many get-outs and pages of small print that they are effectively nullified.

A seven-year warranty on a car – but it doesn’t cover wear and tear. So what exactly would it cover?

A lifetime warranty – what could that possibly mean?

New laws have recently been introduced in Europe that require electrical appliance manufacturers to ensure  their products are repairable for up to ten years from purchase. That means repair manuals, easier access to working parts and the availability of spare parts.

However, given how difficult it still is to get items repaired – the cost of spare parts, the lack of repair engineers, the inconvenience – compared with the ease and relatively low cost of replacing items, is it any wonder that users tend to opt to have their broken appliances replaced rather than repaired?

Of course, by providing consumers with less durable products, producers may simply be giving consumers what they want. Consumers don’t always want products that will last:

• Products that last tend to be more expensive. If manufacturers make products that last, they would inevitably have to raise prices as they use higher-quality parts and more robust manufacturing techniques. Consumers don’t always want to pay a premium for a better quality product.
• Consumers like products with the latest technology. They like to be fashionable. With technology advancing at a rapid pace and offering incredible enhancements, users who want to stay on trend feel obliged to replace their old products – facilitated, of course, by businesses that have made purchasing easy, affordable and convenient. Consumers are therefore not too concerned about a product breaking down after only a couple of years – they were going to replace it anyway.
• Consumers have embraced the throw-away culture. Clothes are bought to be worn once or very few times. They, along with many other products, have become disposable.

The need to regularly replace existing products is not something consumers are particularly opposed to – especially if the replacement product can claim to offer some sort of enhancement. When this is coupled with all the other pressures that are put on consumers – advertising, peer group pressures, financial inducements, internet ease and convenience – it is not surprising that consumers so readily opt to replace existing products.

An example of this is the iPhone. How many users upgraded just to get the latest model? How many users decided that their battery life wasn’t quite as good as it used to be and therefore chose to replace their iPhone with a new one?

Similarly, people will change their car for a new one when there is nothing wrong with the one they have – attracted by a new model, assured by an all-encompassing warranty, induced by a favourable financing deal. And yet, they didn’t actually need to replace the old one – it was still working perfectly.

This unabashed commercialism faces a singular threat to its dominance: environmental responsibility. The recognition that the Earth’s resources are limited and that we need to be more environmentally aware may drive us to be more mindful and more demanding of the durability and lifespan of our purchases.

The trouble is, everyone – the Government, manufacturers and consumers – benefits from the current arrangement. Where is this environmental prioritising going to come from? Who or what is going to make us rethink how we spend our money and choose our purchasing preferences?