Product improvement or planned obsolescense?

[SnowRidge]

It's definitely not planned obsolescense in the traditional sense...

The best example I can give you of planned obsolescense is your computer... Try buying the latest software and run it on a Windows 98 PC... Or try to hook up your 25 year old Tandy 2000 to the internet. Or try and get parts for either one.

That's not planned obsolesence at all. Planned obsolesence is an engineering/marketing decision to build something with a certain design lifetime, rather than trying to make it so well that it will last essentially forever.

In the case of PCs, it is technological advances that render machines and software obsolete, not planning on the part of their makers. Most old PCs will run fine, even though they are obsolete. The obsolesence wasn't planned. It happened because someone built a better mouse trap.

 

[Pompiere]

"Planned obsolescense" as defined by former GM president Alfred P. Sloan in the 1960's wasn't about improvement to the product as much as making the customer think that the new product made their old one pale in comparison. In a "keeping up with the Jones" mentality, the latest new feature or style wins. No one wants to be seen in last year's model. With the volume of tractors that Deere sells, changing the hood design probably doesn't cost much per unit. And, the dies need replaced periodically anyhow. I don't think too many people buy based on the hood style, but as was said, it makes the new model distinct from the old.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

When Deere changes hoods they have to tool new hoods, grills, lights and design new decals. The new 8030 has multiple side vents requiring tooling for each. Granted on a $100k tractor the cost isn't as noticable but on a $15k tractor the cost is much more noticable to the overall price. I have nothing against Deere for doing this just pointing out the fact that they are really the only ones that does so.

 

[UncleBuck01]

Nothing wrong with this. That's their job.

The underlying assumption of may of these posts is all consumers (except the posters) are idiots and have no power to resist marketing. Just a herd of lemmings rushing to the cliff of yet another purchase they do not need.

Change that word ALL Consumers too the Majority of consumers and now that is closer to what is happening, Wal-Mart banks on it, Politicians get elected with it, is it illegal, "NO", is there Nothing wrong with it, that is debatable.

 

[MikePA]

Change that word ALL Consumers too the Majority of consumers and now that is closer to what is happening, Wal-Mart banks on it, Politicians get elected with it, is it illegal, "NO", is there Nothing wrong with it, that is debatable.

I disagree with 'majority of' as well.

To believe people are simply too stupid to act in their own best interests, e.g., they keep shopping at Wal-Mart (this generation's favorite whipping boy) after getting shoddy merchandise, is nothing more than cultural arrogance.

 

[ccsial]

Isn't it the height of arrogance to sit in judgment of other people's purchases? Who are we to determine someone else's needs? How can we know if they 'need' certain controls on a washing machine? Answer, we can't.

I think your being a bit over sensitive here. I was simply pointing out that marketing is always looking for products some people want. Marketing departments have to keep finding new ways/features to get people to buy products. It's up to each person what to buy. But marketing does drive a lot of buying habits.

"Who are we to determine someone elses needs?" That is EXACTLY what a good marketing person does. That's why they get the big bucks.

Frankly, I'm glad people do buy the new stuff because then manufacturers have to retool. That means more automation business for me.

 

[MikePA]

I think your being a bit over sensitive here.

Maybe.

If I had to sum things up, I don't think the vast majority of the people in this country are as stupid and gullible as some posters in this thread make them out to be.

 

[rback33]

Wow. Lots of good stuff here. I will touch on a few things...

1) As a company, we have gone with revision numbers or letters on things.... ie Most people will have a ML112E Mahindra loader. This is no longer in our control though. As an OE supplier, if the customer asks us to change the model, we do. It is MUCH easier to change the model even though most of the parts are the same. I do not have to worry about getting the correct book out that way.

2) Marketing is the way of the world. I LOVE the new Ford marketing technique with the "here, drive this new car for a week" thing. That is pure genius. I cannot think of 5 people that would NOT gush about the shiny new car they were given to drive. It's a human nature thing. Most of us do not look that critically at things. I am not saying the guy that says, "I wish I had never bought me Chevy," got hoodwinked, because I would likely have jumped at the option to drive this new vehicle too. They also only us those people that gushed over the product. I wonder what the REAL percentage of people that felt they made a mistake was...

3) As others have said, all business are in it to make money. Some make more than others, but have to spend more to do it. Percentage wise the oil companies may not be out of line. I cannot support nor deny, just
speculation.

4) As I and others have mentioned... steel has gone up beyond belief in the last 3 years and I can guarantee that you have not seen the same price increase in the tractors you are buying. As a company we spend DAYS having meetings trying to find ways to reduce costs to offset steel increases. I know we are not alone in this battle. Those types of meetings are not fun and with the global economy you are always in a dog fight with other parts of the world for the same business. It's a vicious circle. You have to reduce costs so you source parts from other places, which causes other changes and model numbers change....

The thing is we all want to complain about Walmart, but we all have the Walmart mentality. We want everything, but don't want to pay anything for it. I know, I know Mike I lumped us all in there together. I agree that not all of us are that way all the time, but I can bet we are all that way SOME of the time. U can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. Don't know who the funny guy was that said that first, but it is very true.

 

[rback33]

Maybe.

If I had to sum things up, I don't think the vast majority of the people in this country are as stupid and gullible as some posters in this thread make them out to be.

This was posted while I was typing my long reply... I hope you don't take my above reply the same way, because we are not all gullible. If anything we are lazy by nature and follow the path of least resistance. We can all agree that stupid, gullible people do exist. The problem is that they garner more attention than the average Joe. I remember the people that call with asinine questions WAY longer than the ones that make sense.

 

[jeffinsgf]

... U can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. Don't know who the funny guy was that said that first, but it is very true.

Abrhaham Lincoln. And, I am pretty sure he spelled out "You".