Perceived Obsolescence

Last week, I talked about the theory of planned obsolescence and how this increasing the amount of waste that humans produce. Well, there’s another piece to this puzzle called perceived obsolescence, which is a part of planned obsolescence which refers to how an object is no longer identified by the public as “cool” or “fashionable”.

To expand off the last post a little bit, various technologies can a prime example of the fads that quickly pass through our culture. The most prominent brand who this phenomenon is most often attributed to is Apple, as this article in the New York Times appropriately titled “Cracking the Apple Trap” demonstrates.  As soon as a new iPhone model out, our old one immediately seems less shiny and exciting, even if it only six months old itself. When things go out of fashion or something else becomes more popular, we recognize the first object as obsolete.

Another example of perceived obsolescence is the world of fashion. It seems like every month, not to mention every season, fashion shows and magazines are touting new clothes and trends that you just have to try if you have any sense of style at all.  But four months later, all of those clothes are suddenly out of fashion again. But why? They still function as clothing, and they don’t look or work any differently than they did before, but they are suddenly “perceived as obsolete”, just as the technology was.

Above and on right: examples of magazines explaining
new trends and showing consumers where to buy them

Our culture has placed such high importance on trendiness, and “keeping up with the Joneses”. In an article discussing the financial and consumption habits of Millennials, the author writes that “two in three [of Millennials] want to keep pace with peers on where they live and what they wear, and the types of places they eat and the gadgets they carry”. It matters to our society what we are seen wearing or holding, and if it’s suddenly obsolete, we want whatever it is that the rest of our friends and peers have.

In a study published in the Journal of Consumer Culture, the results discuss “psychological [perceived] obsolescence” and how it “prompts end consumers to constantly re-evaluate product qualities, devaluing existing products,  and [contributes to the] disposal of functioning products”. The constant renewal of our “stuff” is killing our environment because the consumer culture we have created in our society. 

"The Story of Stuff Project" is an organization who are working towards making our planet healthier through the consumption habits of society. This is the video they made that sparked their whole project, which has great insights into the issues of obsolescence:

What does all of this have to do with the environment? The media of magazines and new technologies have led us to experience desensitization in regards to the way that we view the planet. We become immersed in all the stuff that’s constantly available to us, and forget that all the resources to make these products have to come from somewhere, as well as be disposed of somewhere. The conceived concept of obsolescence desensitizes the public to the fact that its consumption is not sustainable and it is actually hurting the planet.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/magazine/why-apple-wants-to-bust-your-iphone.html 
http://business.time.com/2013/11/01/millennials-are-growing-up-but-theyre-still-making-one-huge-mistake/ 

http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.furman.edu/login.aspx?

http://storyofstuff.org/direct=true&db=aph&AN=84490660&site=ehost-live 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses  

Read More

Sustainable Farming

Sustainable Farming

Last week, I talked about the fact that there are so many genetically modified foods out there that we are consuming on a day to day basis and don't know about! Now, there are advertisements out there, or at least are more prominent in our life to inform us about eating healthy and sustainably. But it wasn't always like that. According to this peer reviewed journal I found where an expert examined the history of food scarcity, genetic engineering of food, organic food and such and the origins - how it all started. So how prominent was this subject in social media? Turns out, not really. According to Stewie Lockie, prior to 1996, "very few articles on any aspect of sustainability found their way into any publications" despite sustainable programs and agriculture that had already been implemented. Lockie also mentions that even between 1996-2002, there were aspects of sustainability that "did not attract social media attention." 


But now it's everywhere, yet not a lot of people do anything about it.    So, this week I thought I would discuss the matter of sustainable farming. What does it mean exactly? According to the Grace Communications Foundation, have a sustainable farm is to produce "food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare."According to this article I found on foxnews.com, we actually as a unit, meaning the world have enough food to provide for 11 billion people! (side note: why are so many people starving! if we do in fact have enough food, we need to make this accessible to people that can't afford it!). The problem is, we aren't being sustainable about it. Here are some ways that they suggest we should try to help:

1. Eat less meat
2. Throw less food away
3. Aquaponics
4. Vertical Farming
5. Improve crop production

After being depressed reading about the fact that we have all this food that just goes to waste, I thought it may be a good idea to restore my faith in humanity by looking at people, organizations or companies that are doing the opposite and becoming more sustainable! I recently found that one of my favorite fast-food chain restaurants Chipotle Mexican Grill has been promoting the idea of sustainable farming! Like most companies, the most common form of mass communication, or sending out a message to a large number of people, is through advertisements. 

     Normally, we see this through commercials on television, in the newspapers, radio, etc. However, Chipotle has stepped it up by creating an animated puppet film, about the process of factory farming of animals and how that is bad for the environment and for people. In the end, the farmer stops using chemicals, and the last few seconds of the film show that the food being packed into Chipotle's van to be taken to the chain stores are not processed and are organic. 

Impressively, this 2 minute film will run on the Grammy Award's telecast and at the end, viewers will be encouraged to download the film to share with family and friends via iTunes. The Grammy Awards last year had more than 26 million viewers! What better way to reach a large group of audience members? It already has more than 8 million views on Youtube as well, which can be and in this case is definitely used for what Vivian calls, "viral advertising."

As Vivian states in Chapter 12: Advertising, "throughout its history, dating from the 1950s until recently, television has outpaced the growth of other media as an advertising vehicle." He even goes on to mention that although the Internet is a popular tool as means for advertising in the media, it "remains a mere blip compared to network, cable and local television." I was actually surprised to read that the Internet is "a mere blip" in comparison to the television just because I suppose I am considered a "digital native," therefore most of my own personal exposure with the media comes from there. However, Vivian has a good point stating that when companies use the Internet as their preferred tool to get their ads out there, they will have to use it more strategically because most likely they will be trying to reach the attention of a very specific audience. However, this commercial/advertisement is coming from a restaurant which is obviously catered to the entire public, not intending for any demassification or anything like that, therefore it is smart for them to put this out there for people of all ages.

Read More

Planned Obsolescence

(A cartoon depicting the issue of planned obsolescence; originally from here)

How many cell phones have you had in the last five years?  iPods or other type of MP3 player?  Computers?

I’ve personally had 2 computers, 2 iPods, and 3 cell phones in the last five years.  I got my first cell phone entering freshman year of high school (at age fourteen), and have had four since then, six and a half years later. And I honestly think that I’m on the lower end of that spectrum.

Planned obsolescence, also often known as  “built-to-break-down in industrial design” is a term defined on Golden Gate Express as the “policy of planning or designing a product with a limited life span”.

T-mobile’s newest plan is called “JUMP!”, and is a perfect example of planned obsolescence. It uses the slogan “Two years is too long to wait” with funny videos of a man who is struggling to wait the full two years before upgrading from his current dysfunctional phone. Watch one of the advertisements here:

Media has had a huge effect on this societal conception.  Advertising like T-mobile’s assures its consumers that it’s okay, even better, to replace their technology every two years or less. 

The companies benefit immensely from the carefully timed death of your cell phone because companies can essentially guarantee that you will be a returning customer at the end of two years, or five years, or however long they want the product to last.

But it’s not beneficial for everyone.  In fact, the thing most immensely hurt by this industrial “solution” is our planet.  For every time that we upgrade our cell phone or computer, there is a huge amount of waste that comes from that piece of technology. According to this article on The Guardian website, planned obsolescence has “led to such extraordinary mountains of waste is causing untold harm in an era of climate change and resource scarcity, so it's high time we changed it.”

The EPA tells us that excessive amounts of consumer electronics are sold every year, with only about twenty-five percent being recycled:

In 2009:

·       438 million new consumer electronics were sold;

·       5 million tons of electronics were in storage;

·       2.37 million tons of electronics were ready for end-of-life management; and

·       25% of these tons were collected for recycling

(A chart from the EPA demonstrating the problems of technology waste)

In my next post, I'll talk more about how media has created the concept of "perceived obsolescence" and how it affects our planet.

(Originally from Quiet Environmentalist)

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/changing-mindsets-prevent- environmental-disaster 

http://www.goldengatexpress.org/2013/02/24/shortens-longevity-of-electronics/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRi5gMCGaI&list=PL6DDBAB794DC92FAD

http://quiet-environmentalist.com/is-the-earth-doomed-due-to-planned-obsolescence/ 

http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/po/ 

Read More