I must warn you at the outset: this blog is going to be horribly disjointed and probably very long. Unlike the delicious amalgamation of two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun that make up the staple of America's largest fast food conglomerate, there's little daily substance being thrown my way lately. My trifling revelations about life have yet to fall into a larger schema of musings, unlocking the secrets surrounding the little thing we call "the human condition." In layman's terms, contrasting the Big Mac that can be compared to many of the world's religious philosophies on the meaning of life, I'm working on the White Castle burger of insights, enjoying the simplicity of a miniature square beef patty of thoughts whose only companions are cheese, onions, and a bun that makes you feel like a giant when you hold them between your two fingers and thumb. But, like a White Castle burger, what I lack in substance, I more than make up for in a delicious taste and a side of fries.
A few weeks ago, around the triumphant arrival of Apple's iPhone, a product release that rivaled the anticipation of Price Ali Ababwa's entrance into Agrabah, I started thinking about consumer desires and trends, more importantly, why a product like this, which doesn't seem to, as of now, offer drastic functional innovations over products available today, has garnered so much attention and affection. Not to say that the iPhone isn't innovative. In defense of my previous statement, there are a lot of other products that offer the same features as the iPhone on the market today. Apple has simply changed the way you access, interact with, and manage these functions. Admittedly, I have only seen people using them on the street and read reviews of it online. I have yet to get my hands on one to actually try it out and see what all the fuss is about. I imagine all I'd really do is awkwardly fumbled around with its features and ultimately not get very far, like the first time I tried to unhook a girl's bra. So I am by no means an expert commentator on how sexy and smooth the iPhone makes you feel inside. I'm also fairly technologically inept now, so anything that has more than about 12 buttons scares the living crap out of me. But that is not what this essay is about.
Obviously, the Apple brand name had something to do with the iPhone's popularity. The current "trendy" atmosphere that surrounds the company's logo, the prototypical apple with hearty bite taken out of it that is unmistakably recognizable as both "cool" and "hip" simultaneously, cannot be denied and overlooked. But there has to be something else to the buzz that has surrounded this product ever since the grumbling rumors that Apple was making a "revolutionary new phone" surfaced, something beyond just brand recognition and loyalty. Post release, as I began to think about the manner in which the iPhone was being marketed in print and visual media, I came to a mildly stunning revelation in the realm of technological product development. So, I submit to you the theory which I have come up with to explain why products like this, and other recent technological achievements, have garnered such rampant popularity.
I won't spend any time debating here that technology is rapidly conquering the world around us, like a boat brimming with bloodthirsty and barbarous Bedouins bent on decimating and demarcating all that they come upon. You probably already came to that conclusion somewhere around the day you realized you can't do anything productive with your day unless you have access to the internet and you can't even remember life without a cell phone. But that is neither here nor there and I've now gotten way off topic. There is a growing trend that I've noticed in new technological offerings is also the simultaneous destruction of one of the fundamental freedoms that coincide with consumerism. In my opinion, the beauty of being a consumer in the "modern" world boiled down to a simple, singular concept: options. At least in capitalistic countries, great strides have been made in society to prevent what was once viewed as a crippling characteristic of commerce causing caustic conflict between big and small business: monopolies. And while the word also lends itself to the an amusing board game of real estate purchase and property development, testing all of your best financial management skills, in the corporate world, monopolies generally equate to prices that are not checked and balanced by free competition. So, in many cases, such as the formulation of Southwestern Bell Corporation in '83, a "spin-off" from the day's reigning telecommunications giant AT&T, companies have been forced to relinquish some of their holdings in order for a more competitive market landscape to emerge. While certainly not a recent phenomenon, this kind of market manipulation has resulted in one of the most basic freedoms we as consumers, and to a deeper, more ethereal level, humans, have: choice.
Consumers and producers alike revel in their freedom of choice. It provides us consumers the options we require in order to tailor, or at least feel like we are tailoring, our purchases to our lifestyle and specific demands. It promotes development of the "individual." More importantly, it provides producers the necessary circumstances around which they can refine their product, redesigning it to cope with the various needs of a society so rapidly changing as our own. It forces producers to make new products, spending money to make money. To put it in real world terms, consider any produced product. Now consider how many varieties of that type product there are out there, even ones that have been crated by the same company (such as different flavors of a sport's drink for example). All of those products have been the product (pun very much intended) of variations spurned by consumer choice. Were there no challengers to a producers dominance in a certain product category, there would be no need for innovation. If you wanted a stapler, for example, you would have to buy from a certain supplier and there would be no incentive for advancements in the field of staplers. Necessity may be the mother of all invention but choice is the mother of all variation.
I'm eventually going to get to my main point, the proverbial "meat and 'taters" of this post, but it may take a while. Bear with me. In the current world, our needs and desires change on an almost daily basis and the prevailing and fast blowing winds of development push us towards a demand for newness and novelty in almost every aspect of society. Lest we get bored or bogged down with what is "old" or "out-dated," we crave innovation and achievement in our consumer choices. And the market has responded with more choices than you can possibly sample. However, in the world we live in, it seems like all this created variation has lead to consumer overload. Consumers are inundated with facts and figures, trials and testimonies while on the purchasing prowl. And, as the line of dissimilarity between products begins to blur, it's becoming increasingly hard for a consumer to distinguish between several varieties of a product which all, essentially, do the same thing. All printers print, all staplers staple (if you haven't noticed yet, I've been writing this part at work, so my office supply examples are semi-justified). Consumer overload makes purchasing, or rather, purchasing confidence in my opinion, harder to attain. How can you feel easily satisfied when purchasing a tv, for example, when you know that there were 10 other directions you could have gone to end up with essentially the exact same result. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my opinion on the benefits of a simplified consumer world with less choice (maybe it's just my deep seeded fear of commitment), it's doubtlessly true that consumer overload is more prevalent today than it ever has been.
O.K. That was a long, arduous and possibly entirely unnecessary means for making my first point of this entry: consumer overload exists (maybe this is why it's taken me almost five days to write this). Now here comes my second point, which I'll alert you to at the outset of my dissertation, so if you are too winded from reading what is above or you just want to accept what I am telling you on faith without making the expectedly exhausting effort to summit my gargantuan amount of logic and reasoning, then you can just skip to the conclusion and save yourself some time. It's kind of what I want to do right now, and I'm writing this damn thing. My second point is that today, society's greatest demand is convenience. We don't want to get bogged down or slowed up by extraneous effort wasting our time and we don't want to expend any more effort beyond the absolutely necessary baseline required to achieve our intended results, nothing more. Consider: universal remote controls, copy machines that print, collate, and staple, those pens that have the three different ink colors and a pencil, Walmart, Vitamin Water, Netflix, HBO on Demand, FedEx/Kinkos. These are all examples of society's efforts to simplify and streamline, all in the name of convenience and ease of use. But this trend towards "leaner products" doesn't just apply in the consumer world, it has become a societal attitude. Look at home delivery, e-mail, take-out food, carpools, and the home office. These "inventions," in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier, have been created to help advance society by allowing citizens the luxury of convenience, removing the challenges that come with the age old epigrammatic predicament of having too much to do and not enough hours in the day to do it. All most of these modern amenities really do is simply save time.
These new-fangled time saving advancements society has made in its never ending quest for more judicious expenditures of our temporal resources has overwhelmingly resulted in a fairly basic outcome: the blending of products to facilitate our desire to eliminate superfluous effort. Most of the items I have already discussed in the previous paragraphs can be broken down into combinations of other products already on the market. And, like Voltron, when these products combine, the functionality and power of the new single goes up, Thus, one product can now do the job of three or four separate ones, saving you, the consumer, time and money. Why buy three different colored pens when you can just buy one and get the same job done? That's how we ended up with movies you can watch on your hand held videogame consoles, consoles you can use to access the internet, internet browsers on your phone, phones that double as mp3 players, and mp3 players that play movies. It's a vicious circle of product cross-pollination that, like a tissue circling your toilet drain, is being drawn towards that Platonic ideal of the all-encompassing and eternal "last product you'll ever need." And it is here that I bring back the initial impetus for writing this entry. The iPhone is striving to be just that. It markets itself as the perfect love-child of an internet browser, a phone, and an mp3 player that will have customers weak at the knees, upon mere sight, unable to resist its sexy curves and sleek features. They will double over in an almost orgasmic contraction once they get a chance to own it. Now, while this may seem ridiculously evident and you may be really upset having read this thesis on product development, probably now dumber than when you started, my argument doesn't stop here. (For the purposes of simplicity, I'm using phones as a prism through with to support and examine my argument, but that doesn't mean that the buck stops there.)
First, as advanced as phones may seem now in America, with the iPhone claiming the commencement of a new era of smart-phones, elsewhere in the world, people use phones in much more innovative and spectacular ways. In Finland, the home country to powerhouse developer Nokia, people use phones to buy drinks from certain vending machines, simply by waving it in front of a sensor like a Mobil Speedpass. In some countries in Africa, citizens there use their phones to pay for groceries in a similar manner. In India, shockingly enough, fishermen and farmers are using their phones in really unique ways to conduct business. Fishermen check market prices around the world so they can accurately price their catch even before reaching the docks. Farmers are sending pictures of diseased crops to botanists who are recommending proper treatment and pesticides. So, as far as the iPhone, and mobile technology in America to a larger extent, has come, Americans still have a long way to go before realizing the full potential of a product with this much connectivity to the rest of the world, hopefully finding a way to use it beyond, as I have seen, engaging in a bidding war on eBay while working the counter at a pizza shop.
Secondly, and finally back to my semi-original point, as I pondered the success of the iPhone, and other products that, like Bo Jackson, "do it all," I became more than a little disturbed by recent trends in product development. Obviously, there is still a huge amount of choice in the market today. You can't innovate or create anything even remotely popular without three or four competitors nipping at your heels and jumping on the bandwagon, releasing similar products weeks later. But a huge number of these "new" products are merely a single companies take or update on the same concept. Flowing in the vein of phones again, Research in Motion (the folks who make Blackberry), Motorola, Palm, and Apple are all companies that make extremely similar phones now, with similar features and offerings. So yes, there's still a huge amount of choice out there in the market, but at this point, consumer choices seemingly start to boil down to brand name, which product is cooler in their "scene" versus which product actually provides better services. I have heard a number of people justify a particular phone purchase with, "No one else has it." And while I'm all for expressing individuality in your consumer choices, especially in a time when we have the freedom, not to mention countless mediums, through which to express our personalities, it doesn't sit right with me that someone would explain their choice of phone in the same way I explain my choice of toothbrush, to avoid the risk of confusion and someone else walking off with mine. The market applauds variations on style and outward design more than on features, because features are unreliable from place to place. What works in one scene may not be what people are looking for, or literally functions, in another. Asking two different people who own a Palm Treo, for example, if they like their phone, you might find that one extols it while the other abhors it. One uses the camera all the time to snap inspiration for her art while the other uses the internet to keep up with his clients through email. But, in the superficial society we life in, each wouldn't own it if it didn't look "cool" at some level. Product look and placement play such an important role in its selling power that few buy a product these days if they don't like the way it looks or the assumptions surrounding it. These days, it's mostly a status symbol, but that's not the point. Production design choices, both aesthetics and functions, aren't necessarily about providing top of the line service anymore, but about providing you with the "coolest" product, and generally, they are also then ones telling you what "cool" means. Let me elaborate.
It seems that today, producers are dictating the market's direction more than consumers. I don't know anyone who was thinking, "Man, I wish I had a camera in this thing," when they were first buying a phone. Nor do I really know anyone who uses the camera on their phone to do anything more than snap pictures of weird and wonderful signs they see walking around the street and send them to their friends. But still, it's near impossible today to spit in a phone store and hit a phone that doesn't come with a camera and a million other features I'll probably never use, likely because I already have something else equally or better equipped to handle that particular need of my life. Producers have essentially told me that I want a camera, an mp3 player, and even tv now, in my phone by steering the market in that direction (I'm sure after a great deal of market research to find untapped niches for product exploration). In perhaps easier or more complicated terms, depending on your preference, producers have fabricated a market demand for phones that have these features by producing a whole host of phones that have them, forcing me into a position to buy one. It's like a freak child of a monopoly: I have no choice but to buy a phone with all these bells and whistles now, mostly due to product availability. Sure, I won't lie, I do want a phone, a camera and an mp3 player, but I want them separately. I'm not going to be adventuring on vacation, using the camera on my phone to catch the vistas that surround me, and if I wanted a cheap mp3 player, I could spend less money than the difference in price between a phone with and without an mp3 player and probably still get something that has more storage space and better sound quality than what could be in my phone. But notice, other than mp3, video and internet content, very few companies have tried other innovations or combinations. Granted I'm a small market share, but I'd really like a phone that dispensed candy like a Pezz dispenser, or had a built in lighter, so I'd never need to scrounge through my couch cushions looking to see if it fell out of my pocket or if that shady guy on my porch jacked it when he asked me for a light at the party last weekend. That would be a lot more useful, in my opinion, than the other products producers Frankenstein together, but since the producers will never make it, they have ruined the market for it before it even got a chance to get started.
The final point of all this is that it seems as though more and more producers are taking product choice away from consumers and putting it squarely in their own hands, telling consumers what they need and conveniently giving it to them at the same time. Gone are the days when producers tried to tell you what you wanted, the once basis of all good advertising. Now, producers tell you what you need, what you absolutely must have, in order to be all you can be, to be the top dog, to be "cool." And we blindly follow like sheep, buying whatever is "hot" or "now" or "in," regardless of whether or not it is actually what we need, but simply because it is there to consume and we want it. And honestly, I can't blame producers, for being in the drivers seat, choosing which left or right we make in the market. Controlling the market is a lot more profitable than letting it control you. Now, I haven't figured out yet why or how producers have taken the reigns in the market, but that's for another day. Maybe it's in their advertising, the way they convince consumers to buy their products by convincing them that not only is it the best, but they need to have it or fall behind the pack. Maybe it's that we, as consumers, have become lazy, apathetic towards managing our market fate. Or maybe it's that we put too much faith in the producer's knowledge of their product, believing that their motives for development and advancement are genuine, compassionate and altruistic compulsions to advance society in the best way possible by connecting man with his fellow man in a way never before conceived, a way that widens the possibilities for human, interaction, communication and understanding, opening a path that might bring us together as a species and unite us in the pursuit of what really matters in life, so why not listen to what they have to say. They pay smart people a lot of money to design new products, so it must be important. It's not like they're just trying to make a buck of us... right?
So that's my story. Agree or disagree, it's your call. I understand it's a bit cynical at times, and I realize I let myself get carried away on the froth of my passion here and there (it did take me almost a week to write). But I appreciate the ear you have lent me, and if nothing else, I would be pleased and honored if you came away from your reading tonight with at most an appreciation for a different perspective and at least a way to kill time. This need not change your world view. In fact, it was not intended as such, nor was it intended to educate or fascinate. But, just perhaps, it has shed light on the dark side of a conundrum you never even knew existed, one which I implore you to explore. For you never know what insights you too shall find. Happy Shark Week.
broken snifter...