What if I told you the reason the fabric is already pilling on the sweater you bought last month was because of a few businessmen and the lightbulb?
One evening in 1924, the world's leading light-bulb manufacturers gathered for a meeting that would change the world forever. You see, these lightbulb manufacturers had a major problem: people weren't buying enough light bulbs. In 1924, the typical lightbulb would last an average of 2,500 hours, meaning that if a person had the lights on for 12 hours a day every day, it would be almost 7 months before they had to replace the lightbulb. These businessmen realized that if they intentionally shortened the lifespan of their product, people would have to replace them more often, putting more money in their pockets.
Together they founded an organization known as the Phoebus Cartel, a supervisory body that would carve up the worldwide incandescent lightbulb market. They succeeded in shortening the lifespan of their bulbs, which by early 1925, became codified at 1,000 hours, and the cartel disappeared from history by the 1930s.
But the story doesn’t end with the cartel. For starters, the average lifespan of an incandescent bulb is still 1,000 to 1,200 hours. As for life outside of light-bulbs, the practice of knowingly creating a product with a relatively short life span became known as planned obsolescence, something that even today affects everything we buy.
Even the phone in your pocket is designed to fail, a modern example of this phenomenon. When the first few iPhones came out, there were measurable differences and visible upgrades between the first few versions. Just comparing the first two models, the second iPhone was twice as fast as its predecessor and ran iPhone 3.0 (an early version of iOS 8). Since then, Apple has started to release two models a year instead of just one, and we’ve seen the products are becoming more of the same.
According to Forbes, the similarities between the two most recent models are so strong, there's a strong argument as to whether an upgrade is even needed: “After all, if most of the characteristics are the same, but one costs $100 less, that's a no-brainer, right?” Apple has also faced legal challenges in the past for slowing down their old phones to keep demand high, losing a recent class-action lawsuit.
Surprisingly, there's even more reasons that making a product worse for the consumer is better for business.
From sweaters to cars to kitchen appliances, it would seem that everything we have is failing, falling apart or exploding faster than it used to. The things we buy have suffered in quality due to a carefully concocted corporate plan to expedite the rate of production. All so that you must buy another one and, in doing so, make someone out there richer.
This isn't a new phenomenon; the things we use have been declining in quality since the Industrial Revolution. In the early 1800s, if you wanted a new coat, you would have to make
it yourself or go to a tailor. In either scenario, the coat is designed and produced exactly for you, the way you want it. Additionally, since this is the time before synthetics, the coat you’re getting is made of all-natural materials and unless you are exceedingly wealthy, it's probably locally sourced. Since so much effort and money went into getting that new coat, you’re likely to care for it well in hopes of extending the lifespan, repairing it as needed along the way. It would hopefully be a long time before you replaced it with a new coat, and when you did, it would be out of necessity.
In the age of industrialization, that’s bad for business.
Clothing is a good example of this process. There's a pair of jeans that my mom bought in college, and 30 years later they’ve become a beloved addition to my closet. But the clothes we have today aren’t just worse than something that was hand-sewn, they’re worse than mass-produced clothes even 50 years ago.
Inflation is a driving factor for this decline. Over the years, the cost of everything, including labor, has gone up. So, if we keep everything about a product the same, it will cost more to produce that exact item now than it would have 50 years ago. But consumers don't want to pay more, and companies still want to profit, so they compensate.
Design has three key elements that manufacturers take into account: the aesthetic, how easy or cheap the product is to make, and the quality and functionality of the product. To reduce costs, companies may choose to make shortcuts and in doing so, infringe the overall quality of the product.
But there are limitations. Companies don't want to compromise looks, because then people won't buy the product. Therefore, shortcuts and cost reductions are made in two key areas: manufacturability and quality. Shortcuts in quality mean reducing the overall quality of the product by sourcing cheaper materials and or cheaper production. This is what is most obvious to the consumer.
From light bulbs to iPhones to coats, the practice of intentionally designing products with shorter lifespans has become ingrained in our consumer culture, driven by economic incentives and the pursuit of profit, permeating everything we buy – something not even the Phoebus Cartel could fully see coming.
Ainsley Foster is a sophomore studying elementary education.
