The introduction + the first three chapters of Gile Slade's "Made to Break" were really interesting to read for me, since I am interested in most parts of "business." The ingenious advertising that we know of today as well as the retail style of several industries can be explained by looking at the past that Slade mentions in his book.
The introduction raised several issues that had me pondering throughout the reading. We have become a society that does not fear waste. In fact, we actually advocate and fully participate in the heinous act. Instead of recycling our old PCs, laptops, ipods, and cell phones, we usually throw them out in masses and replace them with new ones that won't be so new in a short amount of time. As humans, it is in our nature to want more and more, meaning that once our 'new' products are considered outdated, we will try our best to get the newest versions. That means that every time we take part in this replacement, we're adding on more junk to the already gigantic pile of electronic waste that "we do not have enough time, money, or space in the continental Unites States to create enough landfills" (3) for. The worst part is, in my opinion, a lot of this so-called waste were usuable.
Above all else, the economic incentives seemed to have influenced the American society's frugal and conserving mindset to a wasteful and obsolete one. A lot of the disposable products we still use such as razors, condoms, and sanitary pads were invented as a way to satisfy the American public's growing needs for easier and more accessible necessities (13,17, 18). Companies even advocated for anti-thrift to convince people to keep spending their money (26). Once the automobile industry set in, the top companies Ford and General Motors started to make annual changes and editions of their cars to take advantage of the altered mindset of the American population. One of the adjustments they made were to the style of the cars, in order to meet the demands of women, who made up a great percentage of shoppers (37). I thought it was smart of them to make the appropriate alterations to their products to attract more customers but just as I think about the annual versions of cars today, it is so unnecessary to keep changing the models every year! It seems like such as waste to buy a car if it's going to be outdated in a year or less.
Out of everything, though, I was a bit disappointed in the way businesses took part in the practice called "adulteration", which is when a product in the simplest of processes is diluted (77). In order to profit during the hard times of the Great Depression, firms decided to adulterated their products to decrease cost of production. Although that lead to lower pricing of the product which led to increased sales and profit, it also meant that the consumers were presented with less than superb quality, which deals with ethics in business.
During this reading, I had several questions in my head. Can I really blame the American public for wanting the newest and the most convenient products? Can I really blame the businesses for wanting to maximize profits by constantly upgrading their products? Can I really blame the same people for adulterating their products to stay in business during the Great Depression? Honestly, I do not think I can. It is logical for businesses to want to maximize profits just as it is logical for people to fall into obsolescence. The problem is the implications presented by these. I cannot wait to read more of Slade's to see if he addresses any implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment