Henry Ford, considered to be the father of mass production by some economics historians, ran the Ford Motor Company on the premise that an Average American should be able to afford an automobile. 

He achieved this dream by realizing the cost savings of standardization, identification of the basic tasks in processes, and the narrow specialization of skills honed to efficiently accomplish a limited task or set of tasks repeatedly.   The result is what we refer to today as mass production.  When the first Model T Fords rolled off the production line, they sold for $1200 per copy.  By the time the Model T production line was shut down to be replaced by the new Model A, the price of a new Model T was about $600. 

The volume of production and the relentless reduction in the cost of a Model T made for some seemingly insurmountable competition for the likes of Chevrolet and other competitors.  

Chevrolet hit upon a marketing technique to even the playing field and steal the ball.  They introduced planned obsolescence, the technique of pushing the current model out of favor (fashion) by frequent model changes.  Cars would not wear out so much as be outdated  If Chevrolet could sell a new model to the same customer every four years based on design changes, the profit margin would be enhanced over that of an eight year cycle that was driven by wear and tear. 

Thus was planted the seeds of customer discontent, and the idea of churning the customer base with planned obsolescence was born.  The pace started slowly.  The major style changes in the automobile industry were roughly 1932, 1936, 1939, 1942, <WWII>, 1946, 1949, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1960 and thereafter some changes even occurred on the six month mark.  Of course we are familiar with the short cycle of new model introduction today, and the veritable plethora of choices.  The pattern that emerges is that of an ever quickening and more concretely instilled sense of discontent with what the customer has. 

Henry Ford wasn’t having any of it.  When informed of this new idea of the customer being able to choose a car of a different color, he reputedly agreed to it with the famous statement “Any color they want, so long as it’s black.” 

This marketing answer to Ford’s success, and therefore the Average American’s ability to afford an automobile, was the turning point.  This was one, if not the major switch from and production driven economy to a consumer driven economy based on ever accelerating replacement based on perception rather than full use of a product until it had to be replaced.   

Henry found out fairly quickly that he was going to lose market share to this new strategy of sowing discontent in the population.  As we know, he and all of his competitors had to follow suit or be eliminated.   

The upside of course is the unbelievable explosion of choice today that could not have been foreseen by anyone then, except perhaps a science fiction futurist.  And of course the availability of the goods and services undreamed of by earlier generations are unquestionably valuable.   

But the downside is that we are never quite satisfied, programmed to stride the ever more formidable marketing driven consumer treadmill of discontent, and that with only a vague sense of the loss of such valued elements as tranquility, security, and serenity that were part of earlier generations.   

It is good news, bad news story.  But in order to reap the benefits without being ground up in its gears, we have to be cognizant of it.  Many don’t seem to be aware of it, and therein lies the danger.  We are today in an advanced stage of the Consumer State, you little consumers you.

Thanks Chevrolet.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Correlated subject:

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||