Why are different consumers tolerating obsolescence instead of repairing home goods?

REPLACE VS REPAIR WHY ARE DIFFERENT CONSUMERS TOLERATING OBSOLESCENCE INSTEAD OF REPAIRING HOME GOODS?

Sian Dunning N0620812 Critical theory - PROD30154

BA (Hons) Product Design School of Architecture, Design & Built Environment Nottingham Trent University Dissertation February 2019

ABSTRACT The idea of obsolescence for products is one that’s been found, especially in home-goods, for many years. It has been designed into products in order for brands to get consumers to buy new over and over again. This is something consumers have just tolerated, without thinking twice about buying the latest model when the old one breaks.

The battle of replace vs repair comes in as decision for consumers to think about when a product breaks. This idea, along with that of obsolescence, has changed over the years. More consumers are choosing to replace due to its ease and the added cost of repair. But why aren’t consumers challenging this more?

This study explores the themes within different social groups of consumers and their buying habit for the home.

Literature surrounding the issues with obsolescence and sustainability was analysed along with theory on consumer behaviour. Opinions from different generations and genders, as well as design professional were taken. Views dwelling on the past were common, with many blaming the younger generation for obsolescence.

Alternative ideas around brands being to blame were also explored.

To conclude, more needs to be done to educate consumers and brands about the effect obsolescence has.

Incentives and skills from the past could be brought back in to help tackle obsolescence and teach consumers about repair.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation tutor, Theresa McMorrow, for her incredible support and guidance throughout this study.

I also want to thank all of my primary research participants for their time and views on the research topic.

And finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who have continued to support me throughout this study and my degree.

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review • • • • •

2.1 - Introduction 2.2 – Exploring Obsolescence 2.3 – The idea of Sustainability 2.4 - Consumers and the Home 2.5 - Critical Evaluation

3. Methodology • • • • •

3.1 - Introduction 3.2 - What and Why 3.3 - What Else 3.4 - Ethics 3.5 - How

4. Research Findings • 4.1 - Interviews • 4.2 - Focus Groups • 4.3 - Survey • 4.4 - Critical Evaluation

5. Discussion Themes • • • •

5.1 - Brand 5.2 - Cost 5.3 - Demographic 5.4 - Critical Evaluation

6. Conclusion

1 INTRODUCTION Products have had obsolescence planned into their design for years. When a product becomes obsolescent it means it is no longer used by the consumer or has become outdated when a ‘better’ version is released. Due to this, consumers are making decisions on the obsolescence of products. Different consumers will have different views on when a product has reached the end of its life span: some might stop using it if it develops a fault or performs less well when others would get the product fixed or carry on using it. This study focuses on replace vs repair and explores the difference in consumers’ ideas around obsolescence of products for the home and their attitudes toward such products. The consumers were evaluated against their generation, demographic and lifestyles based on their age and gender. This area of research has been looked into before but without directing the study at the specific consumer’s profile. Doing so gives a better understanding of what these groups are consuming and why, leading to how this can be targeted in the future.

AIM The aim of this study is to find out themes in different demographics in society around what influences buying behaviour of goods for the home.

OBJECTIVES Explore existing idea around product obsolescence as well consumerism.

Find out more about obsolescence from professionals in the design industry.

Research in the form of focus groups to get opinions about obsolescence from different social groups consisting of various ages and genders.

Investigate consumers’ choices and behaviours when it comes to buying, repairing and throwing products away.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION The literature used for this study came from varied sources. Many books on this subject were from academic sources as these gave in-depth explanation and evaluation of ideas, making them more reliable and credible.

Other sources such as commercial books gave more insight into specific areas and tend to be more up to date.

2.2 EXPLORING OBSOLESCENCE The chosen topic of product obsolescence was inspired by Tim Cooper’s work in ‘”Inadequate life?”(Cooper, 2004) He looks into different types of obsolescence. There are three types shown based from relative obsolescence – economic, psychological and technological. Product can be segregated into these different types, dependant on the consumers views of obsolescence. From his study he looks into the different products popular among the public which they have in their home. He quantifies his samples results in tables based on the average time consumers kept their products and compares them against their expectations. This study also looks at consumers views of why longer-lasting products might be bad. Becoming out of date came out the most popular with cost of repair and overall cost coming close behind. This shows that consumers are worried about things being up to date and the cost. This part of his study is useful as it gives an idea as to what consumers already have, however this study was carried out in 2004 and therefore could be out of date. Some of the items like CD players, pagers and fax machines you could say have become obsolete as new technologies have come into place. There is an argument to say that these products haven’t reached their life span as they are still functioning, however more updated technologies have been brought in which combine or create new ways of doing the same thing, e.g. MP3 player over CD, going on to music streaming as well as email taking over from fax which can be done from various products like laptops and phones. This leads to people not only needlessly throwing away working products but also not repairing them as other, ‘better’ products have come along. (Cooper, 2004) “The design of everyday things” (Norman, 2013) Touches on the idea of obsolescence being planned into products by manufacturers as if products are made to be durable, once everyone has them, they won’t need to buy any more of them. Due to this, companies decided to plan-in obsolescence into products so that they would fail, making consumers buy more and again. As well as this “needless Features” (Norman, 2013, p291) are also added to attract consumers. This is also shown in fashions of products with new styles and updated versions coming out every season or year, enticing people to buy the latest model. Norman talks about the difference in women and men with their buying habits, with men being less bothered with the look of fashion or products going out of date but wanted the newest car or technology. This affects both genders, therefore, and is something consumers have just tolerated, mainly down to the fact that they don’t feel that there is an alternative. However, some consumers have rebelled against this by repairing their items instead of buying new.

As well as consumers, other companies decided planned obsolescence wasn’t the only way to make money.

Brands like IKEA pride themselves on their 5 aims – “our mission is the almost impossible idea to combine

beautiful form with good function, longer lasting quality, produced in a sustainable value chain with a low price.”

– (Holmberg, S. and Madestrand, B., 2018. P16).

5 Dimensions of Democratic Design Figure 1 (Holmberg and Madestrand, 2018) Although they claim this is “almost impossible” (Holmberg and Madestrand 2018, p16) IKEA still manage to keep their designs as democratic as possible, and they’re still making money. so why doesn’t everyone else do this?

IKEA invest a lot of money into their testing and research sectors to ensure they can be democratic. Other companies simply can’t or don’t have the money to do so, leading to various factors being compromised. The five ‘dimensions’ of democratic design could be seen as contradictory to each other as many products are rarely of high quality and low price. Ikea don’t focus on trends in their five themes which seems to be a drawback in obsolescence, showing that they have designed it out. If they don’t follow trends, then the excuse of things being outdated isn’t relevant. (Holmberg and Madestrand, 2018)

2.3 THE IDEA OF SUSTAINABLITY The author looked into the reasons why consumers choose the sustainable behaviours they do when it comes to buying, repairing and throwing products away. One reason that stood out is the “cradle to cradle vs cradle to grave” idea. (McDonough 2009). “Cradle to Cradle”, which homes in on the idea of designers designing products for the consumer, rethinks the way we make things and making them more efficient. Things can be recycled constantly without losing quality or decompose without negative effects. “Cradle to Grave”, however, has become the go-to for most mass-produced products as many products aren’t being made to be sustainable. This links in with designers designing products with obsolescence making them unsustainable, making it easier for consumers just to replace products rather than repair them. Furthermore, if the products are not being made to then be recycled and can’t be repaired the consumer has no choice but to discard and replace. Although there has been a major upward shift in product becoming more sustainable, this needs to be improved, leading to all waste being reused, not just some parts. Returning to the idea of cradle to cradle, it touches on the idea of books

and the different ways they are made to be more sustainable. One idea is just a standard paperback with bleached pages, which consumers are used to seeing. In most consumers eyes it’s made from paper, therefore surely, it’s recyclable? However, as designers know, the bleached pages aren’t good for the environment and the ink contains metals and toxins. Alternatives to this are books without bleached pages and a cover without protective layers of plastic. But this isn’t as appealing to consumers as well as not being as easy to read. Chlorinefree paper is also impossible as if they haven’t been treated, the pages are hard to read but if they have then they’re not good for the environment or recyclable. This means designers must make choices when deciding what type is best. This can also be confusing for the consumers, as well as less polluting books looking ‘nicer’.

Another idea is e-books, but they also come with their own environmental drawbacks of the electricity needed, so it’s very hard to be 100% sustainable.(McDonough 2009) As well the way things are designed, the way consumers are fed advertisements about how they can change their sustainable behaviour also has an impact. Kimmel touches on recent studies into people in the US and the Netherlands on how ‘green’ campaigns effects their consuming habits (Kimmel 2015). Just seeing campaigns about ways to be a greener consumer can motivate you to become even more pro-environmental, even if you are already doing the things the campaign is about. This also links in with the peer pressures to be more environmentally friendly when you consume. A study in the US used signs in hotel rooms to show statistics on what pro-environmental things other guests had previously done. Seeing these statistics makes the current guests think more consciously about what they’re doing during their stay. This study could be used to influence people into repairing over tolerating obsolescence if they are being fed information as to why other people are being more sustainable.

However, for many the idea of sustainability is entrenched in the past, according to Hélène Burgh-Woodman and Dylan King (Kimmel 2015). They go on to say it “resonates symbolically” ( Kimmel, 2015 P283) with consumers but it doesn’t have a useful effect on manufacturing and buying behaviour. This means that consumers are aware of sustainability, but if it isn’t directly affecting them then they won’t make changes.

Nevertheless, this can be argued that the rise in consumers experiencing the restriction and as previously mentioned, campaigns, can change people’s attitudes and actions to product sustainability. These studies were carried out in the US and Netherlands, however, so may not be representative of the UK. (Kimmel, 2015) Repair could be on the up. As people are beginning to see the effects things are having on the planet, they are starting to be savvier when it comes to products. In the past, especially during the war with the ‘make do and mend’ movement, consumers would often repair their products and sometimes couldn’t afford not to. This isn’t to say it was what everyone did, but it seemed to be a lot easier and cheaper as consumers possessed the skills to repair. Nowadays, things aren’t as simply made, but those who can are on hand to help. So-called ‘repair cafes’ have been opened up as a place for consumers to bring their broken goods to have them mended. The idea is carried out by volunteers, usually of the older generation as they have more manual skills learnt in the past. These cafes allow people to see how to fix things with ease, so they can do it themselves if it happens again and pass on the skill. (CasaVersa, 2018)

2.4 CONSUMERS AND THE HOME Consumers have needs in the Home. This is explored through consumer behaviours. Consumers can be split up into groups based on their demographic – Age, gender and class. “Women account for about 80% of household buying decisions” (Gardner, 2008 p267). This means the majority of things bought for the home are purchased by women, irrespective of who the user of an individual product may be. This has been picked up by marketers, making women the target for more advertising. This also links in with Kenkel’s division of labour. (Evans, Martin (Martin J.) 2009) Although things like furniture and televisions are likely to be a joint decision, women stereotypically will decide on what washing machines, cooking appliance etc are bought. This is due to women being the primary user of these products, especially in the past. However, you could say that this idea from Kenkel is outdated. On the one hand, you could say more men are getting involved with the home and would want an input into these purchases, which stems from Wilmott and Young theory on joint conjugal roles. (Scott and Marshall, 2009) On the other hand, this may only be for married couples. Those who are cohabiting may be more inclined to make decisions together as the money is not shared like it may be in married couples. This may also be different for couples and families renting as opposed to owning a home, as they may not need to make such purchases as a washing machine and also less decorating can be done. This study is around married, heterosexual couples so doesn’t account for those not married or in homosexual couples. As well as this, there is no age stated so it is unclear which demographic joint conjugal role effects most. Those of the older generation may have more functionalist views and have separated conjugal roles which would support Kenkel’s theory.

However, the younger generations may be more familiar with the idea of joint conjugal roles. (Evans, Martin (Martin J.) 2009) The book does talk about generations and their consuming habits, however. One example is the generation Y or millennials. It touches on the fact that this generation is “spending less time consuming print” (Evans, Martin (Martin J. ) 2009, P159). This is therefore making it harder for advertisers to reach them. They are also less interested in politics and current affairs as they have become more interested in celebrity culture and their personal lives. The theory from Goode could be outdated. Although he touches on mobile phones becoming the alternative to print for generation Y, this has definitely been the case. The younger generation are now being fed more advertisements than ever online, with adverts on video, social media and celebrity endorsements. But is it just this generation that is affected? The generation above generation Y, generation X or baby busters have a degree of scepticism about advertising. This is because they are advertising-literate, meaning they understand how advertising works, and this makes them harder to convince to buy through using adverts. (O’Donohoe, Tynan, 1998) This point is also relevant with generation Y; they are also advertising-literate, especially when it comes to paid advertising from influencers. This makes them sceptical as they know they’re being paid to do so, as new advertising guidelines recently brought in have proven. However, as they are so invested in this culture and what their peers are doing, they may buy regardless of whether it’s a sustainable, longer lasting or repairable product or not.

Marketing techniques are used to get people to buy products for the home. Things like warranty and clearance sales are used by brands to entice customers to part with their cash. Warranty is often used on cars, so if something does go wrong, it will be taken care of. This is also used in the home goods sector, especially for

things like white goods. This gives consumers peace of mind when it comes to repairs within that warranty window. This could also make a product more premium as it has added benefits compared to a rival one without warranty but has a higher purchase price. If a consumer thinks they’re getting a bargain they will have fewer expectations for it. If it isn’t the right colour, or has slightly less functions, they will still purchase it regardless as it’s a good price. Both of these methods mean there’s no disagreement in consumers’ minds when buying, or even going on to further purchases. (Evans, Martin (Martin J. ) 2009) Consumers themselves are taking matter into their own hands too. There has been a surge in tidiness and organisational self-help books, giving consumers tips and tricks on how to live minimally with only the things they need or love. This stems from the destruction caused by the fast fashion industry. However, blogger, YouTuber and now author, Anna Newton has gone one step further with her book, “An Edited Life” to edit all aspects of her home. In this book she talks about a new method she has designed called the “F.U.L.L Method” (Newton, 2019) . This is different from other methods from the likes of Marie Kondo as is isn’t only about keeping something that you want that “Sparks Joy” (Kondo, 2017). The method explains four steps to consider when deciding to keep items. “Is it FUNCTIONAL? Have you got a use for it? Have you USED it in the last year? Do you LOVE it? Do you like the LOOK of it?” (Newton, 2019 P.185) These steps will in turn help a consumer to narrow down the belongings to what they truly need. However, this method may be flawed. The idea is that if any item meets just one of these criteria then you keep it. This may be unrealistic and result in you not getting rid of anything. A more thorough way would be to put belongings against all the criteria and if they meet more than one, then keep them. Another way could be to rank belongings: The F.U.L.L Method seems to run from functional to aesthetic which is comparable to need to want. If you need the belonging because it’s functional then you would keep it because you also love it and like the way it looks, rather than keeping something purely for the look. However, this method doesn’t touch on the product’s sustainability, longevity or reparability. It’s an aid to help people cut down on what they have but it doesn’t raise the question - where are these products going that you’re getting rid of? It’s a way to make consumers feel better about their consuming habits by cutting down, however the damage has already been done. More needs to be done about what they’re buying in the first place as well as repairing products instead of just discarding them whether they are replacing them or not. On the other hand, there is still a large proportion of people who can’t let go of products, even if they’ve become obsolete. These consumers tend to keep items in storage in their home only with the mentality that they might need it someday when in reality they won’t. This is because they form attachments to products. (Evans, Martin (Martin J. ) 2009)

2.5 CRITICAL EVALUATION Obsolescence shows us how and why things become unused and the reasons companies do it seems to be to continue making money. Obsolescence isn’t good for the environment. Making products for the home more sustainable is a way to make obsolescence less of an issue. If it’s good for the environment, does it matter if it’s made to break? Exploring more into sustainability gives more information on how to get around obsolescence.

Sustainable behaviour from designer and consumers can provide a positive impact for the future but it seems it’s not just one thing for everyone. With the decisions not being so simple for designers as there’s not always an obvious answer, and for consumers it doesn’t come naturally as they’re not seeing a direct effect. Does more need to be done to educate people of their choices? A better understand of consumers and what they buy for the home will help to see why they may tolerate obsolescence or are being sustainable.

Exploring consumers and their homes, especially purchasing for them, has shed light as to what habits different consumers have. Women seem to be targeted when it comes to the home, as previously mentioned. But there is still room to explore what habits specific groups have, like different ages, genders and designers too. There is already theory on these groups but looking into this further will solidify this. Also, their views on obsolescence and sustainability in regard to replace vs repair will be explored as there are gaps in the currently available literature linking all these themes.

3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION For the methodology, different methods and reasonings were explored. Three methods were eventually used with back up from research-based literature. Reasons for these are explored through the methodology section whilst looking to support or add to the literature already analyzed.

3.2 WHY HAS THIS METHODOLOGY BEEN USED? The objectives were investigated via semi-structured interviews, focus groups and a survey. Tim Cooper, an academic from Nottingham Trent University, is a key influence in the study as he has previously written papers on the topic. He was used as a pilot study as he fully understood the topic and could point out problems. The interviews were carried out with professionals from the design industry. Designers from the lighting sector and hotel sector have been interviewed for their views on longevity of products and how the industry affects consumers. Using interviews, especially with people the author knew, allows the researcher to gain a good rapport with the interviewee, giving more honest and reliable answers. However, this could lead to participant bias as they want to please the author. Using these participants who work in the design industry gave a wider knowledge to the study as well as them already having a good understanding of the topic.

(Muratovski 2015,

P61) Focus groups of different social groups, like age and gender were also used. These studies helped shed light on why different groups have different habits when it comes to buying for the home and their views of sustainability, obsolescence and repair. They were asked similar questions to the interviews but discussed them within their group. The sample used comprised a group whom the author had easy access to over the past months. A group of six individuals formulating of three sets of heterosexual couples from different generations were put together in a focus group. Another written focus group was also studied comprising three millennials females who have been educated at university level. Using focus groups allows for a variety of answers to questions. It also lets the participants discuss their views against each other, sparking more information.

However, this can lead to some participants taking over with their views and affecting the other participants’ answers. Using different generations and genders within the group allows for different themes with age and gender to be easily recognised. Utilising participants that know each other and the author could also lead to participant bias but also creates a good rapport, with the participants feeling comfortable with each other and not worried about saying the ‘wrong thing’. Both interviews and focus groups can be hard to arrange and timeconsuming. Using participants and situations the author knew allowed them to make this process easier. The use of a written online focus group, allowed the participants to converse when it was accessible for them and was clearly stated, also making it easier to transcribe and analyse. (Robson 2002, P284) A questionnaire for the public was also be sent out. This was based on finding from the focus groups and interviews to see if the themes still follow with further samples. Having this allows for a well-rounded approach to the findings. The use of a survey is an easy way to collect data, especially online. This also allowed the author

to collate quantitative data for the study, which can be difficult to do for interviews and focus groups. Surveys can be distributed easily and reach more people so long as responses are received. There is usually less detail in a survey as the questions may only have a single answer. The inability to explain meanings of questions to participants with an online survey if they don’t understand could skew results. (Robson 2002, P233)

3.3 WHAT ALTERNATIVE METHODS COULD HAVE BEEN USED? Other research methods like observations of people’s homes and refuse centres or scrap yards would also have been useful in the study as this would see what consumers own, as well as what’s been thrown away without repair. However, these studies are more intrusive and require more planning and permission. They are also harder to interpret. With the time frame given for this study these methods weren’t practical.

3.4 ARE THERE ANY ETHICAL ISSUES TO USING THIS METHODOLOGY? Due to the nature of research methods picked, there could have been ethical issues when asking people questions. As the topic wasn’t sensitive this made it easier to ensure the questions weren’t intrusive and unethical. The themes of gender and age can be sensitive issues, so this was highlighted in the consent forms if the participant wished to answer questions about this or not. No participants were under the age of 18 or over 65 as these are vulnerable age groups which would have flagged up ethical problems.

3.5 HOW WILL THE METHODOLOGY BE USED TO ANSWER THE RESEARCH QUESTION? Using three different types of research method will allow for triangulation of the findings as well as thematic analysis. Triangulation allows the author to use the negative impacts one method has to see if the same things are found in another with this as a positive. Using interviews with designers first allowed the author to gain a prior understanding about the industry and what they think consumers do, before seeing if this matched up with consumers themselves. The disadvantage of interviews is only getting one person’s response at a time. This was overcome through focus groups and the addition of a survey. The survey was used to easily gain quantitative data to back up the findings in the interviews and focus groups. Thematic analysis looks through the various studies conducted and picks out themes in the findings. These themes structured the findings and are used to analyse them against each method. Overall the methodology themes can be triangulated and split into, Economy, Consumer and Repair around the products. Economy is pulling one way with the consumer pulling the other whilst repair ideas pulling down.

Economy

Consumer

Manufacture Designer

Demographic Age, Gender

PRODUCT

Repair

Longevity Sustainability

Methodology Triangulation Figure 2 (authors own diagram, 2019)

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS 4.1 SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS The interviews were with designers that author knew and had worked with previously, which made sourcing these interviewees hassle-free for the author. Although this could lead to participant bias as the interviewees knew the interviewer, further leading to answers being skewed to what they felt the interviewer wanted; they were also chosen due to the company they design for being known for reducing product obsolescence. Due to this, the author could use their existing knowledge of their company to find out why they design out obsolescence, as this is something not all companies tend to do, as in the case of Ford cars found in The design of everyday things (Norman, 2013). The findings from Howard Mitchell, Senior Lighting Designer at Mathmos, shed light as to how and why Mathmos have always had repairable parts in their lava lamps. Mathmos is distinct from most companies who offer replacement parts as it is something they have offered since their lamps were invented in 1963. They offer replacement parts as they know their product has obsolescence which they have always struggled to design out. Offering replacement light bulbs and bottles (which are recyclable) allows the consumer to easily source parts from Mathmos directly, ensuring they still make money. As Mathmos products are premium for their niche market it may seem surprising that people tolerate the obsolescence of Mathmos parts and replacement and don’t simply go elsewhere. However alterative, cheaper made lava lamps simply aren’t as high quality as Mathmos’ own and also have the same obsolescence problems but don’t offer replacements. Although Mathmos is a brand that resonates with the older generation as a design of the 1960’s, it is still thriving today. This is likely down to the service they also provide for the upkeep of their products and shows that all generations appreciate good repair service from a supplier. (appendices section 9.5.1) Another interview with Hotel and Cruise Ship Designer, Alison Clixby, also helped the author to understand further what companies are doing to design out repair. Onboard the ships there are many goods you would also find within a home such as chairs, tables and desks. A focus Alison highlighted was designing around problem areas. Corners and side of chairs and tables are a key area which experience knocks and breakages. This leads to products having to be discarded or at least repaired frequently. Knowing the areas which will have high traffic or contact, means they can design additions in, for example providing higher quality, thicker carpet in high traffic areas so they don’t need to be maintained and possibly replaced as often – leading to less waste. Another example she gave was adding plastic protection around the edges of tables and desks to help deal with knocks without breakage or repair. These additions will be at extra cost. However, if a product can last additional years without needed full replacement, this is cheaper in the long run, as with Mathmos lava lamps where the original cost of a lava lamp can be high, but the cost of replacing and updating parts is half that of a complete new product. This is something that can be appealing to a consumer when buying, but also a designer when sourcing.

If these points were focused on with all products, similar to what Ikea do too, this would mean consumers would need to repair less overall. (appendices section 9.5.2) These interviews gave an insight into repair and longevity when designing, however they didn’t focus on why consumers don’t do it themselves. Mathmos makes it easy for consumers but not all companies are like

Mathmos. To further this area of the study, two focus groups were conducted to find out why people aren’t repairing and explore why they buy things for the home, especially with obsolescence.

4.2 FOCUS GROUPS Although focus group make it easier for participants not to think for themselves and just agree with others, it also allows them to hear and think about other ideas they might not have thought about and challenge these.

This seemed balanced throughout the focus groups with participants voicing their views and bouncing off each other. As well as this, the focus groups made it easy to see clear themes where participants agreed with each other. An area that kept being brought up was that ‘they’ want to make money, ‘they’ being the companies, many of the different generations picking up on this in the first focus group. Many also believed that the quality and longevity of products has changed, especially the oldest when reflecting on their own experiences with a previous washing machine lasting twenty-two years, so that heightened their expectations. But over those years, things have changed and even sales assistants have said new washing machines won’t last that long, with five years being a good lifespan for current models and a warranty of that length is offered. This sparked a conversation about expectations with most people coming from previous experience and warranty swaying their purchases. Reviews from other people they trust were mentioned as being influential. However, warranty may not be enough to ensure that people repair their products, with most people saying that they don’t repair due to the time it takes. It’s easy and quicker to get a new product. Conversely, the primary reason why people don’t repair was cost, meaning that providing a warranty should solve this and encourage people to buy products with longer warranties. This could lead to an even bigger decline in repair after the warranty is up as they don’t expect the product to last longer than the warranty, so they don’t want to repair if it hasn’t added much more life to the product. This was reflected in the topic of cars, highlighting how you can replace major parts but that doesn’t mean something else may breakdown the next week, making it easier to trade in etc. In this example, people’s expectations and experiences are the deciding factor for repairs. The older generation seem to be more likely to repair, especially if they can do it themselves stemming from the make do and mend era. Younger generations are more of a throwaway society. This was highlighted by the young female in the mixed generation focus group and also by the women in the all-female group. The females as a collective contributed the most and seemed to have the most well-rounded answers, showing they have more knowledge in this area. A reason for this was that women are stereotypically “shop obsessed” (Emma Battrick, 2019) tying in with the theory of women buying 80% of home products. As women are the main buyer, they have more knowledge as to what’s on the market and possible tricks from brands and companies. Males, on the other hand, may not know as much as they stereotypically ‘hate’ shopping and are more susceptible to a quick fix than looking for a good deal. Because of this, males could be more likely to just replace in instead of repair. However, as Norman has previously stated, women are more likely to keep up with trends and want the most fashionable model. This could lead to replace over repair also. (appendices section 9.6.1, 9.6.2) A question based around the social pressures with homeware compared with fashion gave varied responses.

Participants seemed to think there was less pressure for consumers to have the latest trends when it comes home. They believed the fashion industry was more trend driven and is also something others see more of than

they do in the home. However other agreed with this to an extent but the young female in the mixed generation focus group also added she would want appliances to match and wouldn’t wait for one to break before updating the set. This goes to show that fashion may be important to consumers, especially women, but this behaviour is also shown when it comes to the home. The opposing idea is that home goods, like appliances, are functional.

Due to this, consumers are more likely to want them quickly fixed or replaced, whereas if a piece of clothing breaks, there are other things that could be worn. If someone has a toaster, if it breaks, they don’t have another to use, leading to consumers wanting a quick fix. Furthermore, clothing may be easier to mend by the consumer, and quicker. With appliances it may not be obvious what the problems are and how safe and quick it is to fix as well as the unknown factor of how much longer will it last? From the focus groups, different demographics have different attitudes towards repair and obsolescence. Using a survey allows for a broader sample to be reached.

This also allows for an overall opinion on the topic to be found.

4.3 SURVEY The survey allowed for quick response from a varied audience. With most of the respondents being millennials and students due to the reach the author had, this could produce skewed results. There were also only 36 responses so these may not be representative, but having a survey allowed for some quantitative data which is easier to interpret.

Survey, Question 2 Figure 3 (authors own image, 2019) As the graph shows, the majority of respondents don’t think consumers think about the environmental effect when throwing purchases away, 83% in fact. This rounds off a distinguishing factor for consumers, their priorities. This was echoed in one of the focus groups by Lalla, as she says people may think about the effect or

repairing but convenience overrules. It’s easier for consumers to just throwaway without thinking of the consequences and replace. This also links with the literature stating suitability is rooted in the past, so people aren’t seeing the effect. When the effect is brought to their attention will they change? (appendices section 9.6.2, 9.7)

4.4 CRITIAL EVALUATIONS From the primary research taken out it shows themes of attitude and blame. The focus groups were quick to blame the companies for the problems with obsolescence. The interviews with the designers show they are trying to make a difference with their attitudes, when it comes to obsolescence and repair. The survey solidifies what consumers think about other consumers behaviours with an emphasis on the effect throwaway society has. These link with blame being passed on. The designers could be bias and only wanted to say good things they do, as well as with supporting literature. If more is done at the source to stop obsolescence, is that enough?

The attitude of consumers needs to change also. If they take more responsibility when it comes to buying and start to consider the environment and the idea of repair more?

5 DISCUSSION THEMES 5.1 BRAND One main theme derived from the primary data was brands and their obsolescence planning. The relationship people have with brands is important when it comes to buying functional products, especially those deemed as premium. People naturally expect higher quality from premium products, and this idea can stem from advertising, as touched on in the literature review of consumer behaviour. The younger generation appears especially susceptible to advertising and also trends. Trends have led to people not wanting products to last as long as they may not be trendy anymore. This was reflected in Tim Cooper’s study with products like fax machines and pagers are obsolete and not trendy. This may not be the case for the older generations as aren’t as worried about being trendy, with one focus group participants saying they’d had the same pans for over fifty years! This shows they are happy with products when they’re functional, but these pans were premium at the time of purchase, so this brings in why they expect high quality from premium. Premium to younger generations may be determined by what celebrity are endorsing and using, regardless if they may become obsolete when the new version comes out. Leading on from this comes the question, are those who are buying premium repairing these products or just replacing them when they’re made to break? This links with premium products offering a warranty. Warranty is a big selling factor as well as repair - nothing to worry about, repairs can be done. These factors should be taken on board by brands, specifically lower quality, to improve themselves where obsolescence is concerned. (appendices section 9.6.1) (Cooper, 2004) (Evans, Martin, 2009)

5.2 COST Cost is another theme highlighted throughout the study, especially around sustainability. People are willing to pay more for something that isn’t going to break. This usually links in with brand and a premium product, being of higher cost and ‘better brand’. Consumers are also concerned around the cost of repair. In most people’s eyes, they don’t see the point of repairing something that could break again when buying a newer, up to date version will only cost slightly more and be the current model. This is a reason why consumers may not buy premium as it costs more but there isn’t always the promise of it lasting longer. This is where warranties also come in. Another point is that if a consumer has paid a lot of money for a product they will keep using it until it is completely obsolete. E.g. if a part of a products stops works but doesn’t affect all the functions, consumers will tolerate it until it breaks down is unusable to then replace over repairing as they go – a drive it into the ground approach. This approach was highlighted by men and is a stereotypical male ideation. As previously mentioned, women are more conscious buyer so they may be willing to pay more for something because it is sustainable, as this is usually the case with sustainability being more expensive due to the research and development that’s gone into in. However, consumers as a whole are generally more concerned with the price being cheap over sustainability with money and convenience being the number one factors. So, the links show that consumers as a whole like to trust premium being better quality and therefore longer lasting. On top of this premium cost, the price can raise when the product is also sustainable. These added costs can put consumers

off and leave them purchasing a quick fix instead. More needs to be done to educate consumer around the cost of making sustainable repairs and how much longer they could last. (Evans, Martin (Martin J. ) 2009) (appendices section 9.5.2, 9.6.1)

5.3 DEMOGRAPHIC Different generations and genders of consumers were referenced frequently in people responses. The younger generation have been labelled as spoilt, with too much choice and being used to getting what they want. This can be reflected in their buying habits raised as they are more prone to following trends and throwing things out if they’re no longer fashionable. This has also been raised for women in particular. Trend in age were raised throughout focus groups especially in the generational group with the older generation holding on to products longer and possibly looking after them better. They also tend to possess repairing skills from their younger years and more manual jobs from the past. The younger generations are just used to the idea of buying and repurchasing due to obsolescence as it’s what they’ve been brought up with as a norm. They are also the most aware of all the generations as new information comes to light, however, as they are the most exposed to information on the internet. More needs to be done to teach the young generation about what their purchases for the home mean for the environment and educate them on repairing. (appendices section 9.6.1)

5.4 CRITIAL EVALUATION These three themes link in with the three literature themes previous explored. The themes show that the younger generation and women need to consider the cost of sustainability when it comes to brands with obsolescence. If consumers can do more to buy more sustainable products, which may cost more but aren’t designed to become obsolete, then this would be a great start to the change that could be made. Also, if brands could offer warranty on products to encourage consumers to get their products repaired if it breaks, leading to products being made to last longer to outlive said warranty.

6 CONCLUSION To conclude, there are various factors as to why different consumers tolerate obsolescence instead of repairing.

Consumers supporting brands with obsolescence as they value trends over repair, is one reason why these buying behaviours carry on. The cost of buying into sustainability is too much for some consumers, and they simply can’t afford to do this or don’t value sustainability as much as having money to spend. Different demographics have different habits when it comes to consuming for the home with the older generation being more likely to repair home goods than the younger one, even though they are less aware of obsolescence as they haven’t grown up with it. Women may be more aware of obsolescence and sustainability from their knowledge of buying but they are the main target for consumerism.

In regard to replace vs repair, it may not be that simple. To repair a product is all well and good, but it’s hard for consumers to access and trust this. Repairing may not be something the consumer can do. If they have it done by a professional, how can they know how much extra life it now has? Even though a warranty may be offered, this still takes time for the consumer and costs the brand money. For many, replace is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient option.

More needs to be done to educate all consumers on the effects their buying habits for the home have on the environment. Repair over replace is just one way consumers can help themselves to be more sustainable. We also can’t just pin it all down to consumers: the designers and companies need to make the changes and consumers trends will follow. Just repairing products is a start but this still has negative effects on the environment as not everything can be fixed so there will be waste. As well as this new parts cost money and energy to make, which isn’t sustainable. Unless a product is made to never break, can it ever be 100% sustainable?

A solution to start the change could be to tax companies on products that have planned obsolescence, similarly to products having a sugar tax. As cost is a big factor in this argument, this should shock both sides into making changes. Another idea is to have better repair and recycling services which are convenient for the consumer and could also offer a money-off incentive. Trends like these are already being thought about with bottle buy-back schemes, just like in the past. These types of schemes encourage recycling so there is less waste, and the consumer and company are getting something. This also ties in the different demographics. There is a lot to learn from the past and using ideas like reusable bottles from the milkman may help the younger generation to be more sustainable in the future.

Figure 4 – Permaglas Advert 1958 Could reverting to ideas from the past, like the 1950’s, be the future?

Further research could be done into incentives for companies and consumers to help them to become more sustainable and change their designing and buying habits. Interviewing companies who aren’t being sustainable and working out ways for them to change could also be explored. New ideas from companies like IKEA are recently being brought in, like renting kitchens. Ideas like this could be the future as if you’re renting home products they can be easily exchanged and possibly repaired. Different classes could also be researched. As cost was a large factor for consumers, social class plays a major role into the future of consumer trends around obsolescence and repair.