Giles Slade’s book, Made to Break is my favorite book that we have read so far in this class. Not because it involves technology anymore that the other reading that we have done, but because it involves economics. I am an Economics major here at Rutgers University, and many of the arguments that Slade has to offer are not only compelling in theory, but also very interestingly applicable to real life as he clearly showed in the first three chapters. Chapter 1 discussed the variability of marketing strategy and the tough task to get loyalty among customers in an era where marketing and consumerism were primal. Slade uses several examples of how innovators used branding and packaging, eliminating cost, inventing disposables in a time of cheap consumption, and all the while maintaining reliability. A familiar name Slade introduces would be King Gillette himself and his innovation of the Gillette razor blades. This product was cheap to product, cheap to consume, and disposable; all characteristics of the demanded product at that time in history. However appealing these disposable products appeared, they became a hassle. Slade goes on to explain that the age of the disposables eventually turned into the age of waste and thrift. Apparently the sale of these incredible products didn’t come with any recycling labels, or “dispose of properly” labels. So, consumers felt that it was acceptable to just throw these products away. These products, being cheap, accessible, and disposable; were easy targets for trash, littering, and thrift. Campaigns were created by officials, yet their efforts seemed useless. America eventually cleaned up but not because of the campaigns, but rather a different direction on interest. As Slade explains, “…they now turned their attention to comfort, luxury, and prestige in the products they bought.” (Pg. 28)
To discuss this quote, I wanted to bring up the impressive analysis that Slade uses between (some of) the great masterminds who established the industrial revolution. Slade exemplifies the battle between the great Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan. These two geniuses developed GM and Ford (respectively) in different ways. As Slade points out, the outcome of their marketing turned out to be very different. In his cars, Henry Ford had much to offer; dependability, parts that last, and craftsmanship. Slade spells out that Ford was a strong believer “against unnecessary obsolescence. He represented an absolute ethic of quality and durability in manufactured goods.” (Pg. 33) He compares this to Sloan’s product where technological innovation supersedes this idea of “lasting” by “increasing efficiency and reducing cost.” (Pg. 33) Sloan’s product had a “new and improved” mentality in its sales versus Ford’s “if its not broken, don’t fix it” mentality. Both of these slogans can seem very attractive to different consumers; however, the idea of competitive advantage seemed to give Sloan the upper hand. I thought this example was excellent in that it showed the change in demand of what exactly consumers wanted. Slade displays that eventually, technological innovation took over the antiqueness of old fashioned models, and it was clear that people want new things even if there is nothing wrong with old things.
Finally, I’d like to point out one last thing about Slade’s book that I found attractive. He brings up the idea of Progressive obsolescence and hot it drove perpetual market change and thus our current capitalistic society. To clarify, Slade’s explanation of Schumpeter’s model of Creative destruction is the exact thing that works our current economic consumerism. Today, you see everyone (able) seeking the latest gadget, the coolest toy, or the smallest most compact tool. No longer are we looking for saving or investing, but rather the consumption of futuristic inventions. We can refer back to an in class discussion where consumption is a necessity to being involved with society’s upper class. I enjoyed Slade’s book because he gave us a very accurate depiction of the change that went from penny pickers to big money spenders.
No comments:
Post a Comment