Planned Obsolescence: The Light Bulb Conspiracy

Clement Wong


September 12th, 2012

What is planned obsolescence? An explanation and brief history.

I’m writing a series on planned obsolescence, inspired by the documentary – The Light Bulb Conspiracy. I’ll begin with its history up until the mid-20th century, to be followed by reflections on more modern examples and applications, before discussing the more recent backlash from the anti-consumerist perspective and its implications for our global economy today.

When was the last time you changed a light bulb? While a simple and menial task, it is a job that technological innovation has solved to a large degree. Earlier this year, Philips released an LED light bulb with a life span of 20 years. While deserving of recognition, it is not the tour de force in indoor illumination. The real marvel is the Centennial Light in Livermore, California – an incandescent light bulb manufactured back in the 19th century. The world’s longest lasting light bulb still shines today uninterrupted after a century of use. Indeed, early light bulb innovators like Thomas Edison and Adolphe Chaillet had always pushed for products with the utmost longevity. So decades-lasting light bulbs existed in the early 20th century, and only now are we returning to form with the popularization of LED technology. Where did our ability to make long-lasting light bulbs go?

Enter the Phoebus cartel. Established in the 1920s, light bulb manufacturers like Philips, General Electric, Osram and others across the globe decided to collude in the light bulb market. As technological advances improved and pushed out the life span of incandescent bulbs, sales volumes would be negatively impacted. Fewer, infrequently burnt out bulbs meant less need for replacements – less demand for their products. While price fixing was a natural result of cooperation in an imperfectly competitive market, the Phoebus cartel strived to do more than hike prices. They went beyond limiting product innovation – over the gradual course of a few years, manufacturers actively lower the life span of light bulbs. The industry standard of 2,500 hours in 1924 would eventually drop to 1,000 hours by 1940. Light bulbs were deliberately made more fragile, and competitors would be closely monitored (and if necessary, fined) to ensure strict adherence to product degradation. The Phoebus cartel would eventually dissolve due to increased external competition and the disruptions of World War II, but it had successfully demonstrated a very important point. Stifling innovation and product quality was a feasible means of sustaining consistent consumption and profits.

Couched within this time frame would be the Great Depression through much of the 1930s. Whilst the most famous economic contribution of the time would come from John Maynard Keynes in the form of Keynesian economics, one other man suggested an idea that would eventually be much more pervasive in our social mentality. In 1932, Bernard London proposed that to solve the Great Depression, all goods were to be produced with planned obsolescence – that everything would only be useable for a finite time before rendered obsolete. Obsolete goods would be forfeited to the government, and consumers would have no choice but to go and buy new goods, as a means of creating demand and stimulating the depressed economy. This farfetched proposal understandably failed to gain traction, due to its unpopular and rigid nature, but his musings did not fall on deaf ears.

What was shot down in the 1930s would adapt and come back stronger in the 1950s, thanks to industrial designer Brooks Stevens. With an ideology that centred on designs that felt ‘new’, his influential status in America directed the focus of consumers to the way products looked. Distanced from the notion of a product’s functional obsolescence, Stevens would rather push to instil in the consumer the willingness to chase the latest trends, to sooner abandon their old products in favour of the newest design. This propensity to purchase the latest novelties would be a big force in developing a consumerist society, one that has carried on to something we still strongly subscribe to today.

That said, the story of the sabotaged light bulb from the early 20th century is not rendered irrelevant. Although obsolescence may now seem to be a simple matter of design and tastes, beneath the surface there are still many cases of intentionally dysfunctional products. Indeed, even Philips’ 20-year LED light bulb – a recent capstone marking functional innovation, can be explained by some underlying forces. In my following articles I will continue to shed more light on planned obsolescence.

The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of the ESSA Committee or the Society's sponsors. Use of any content from this article should clearly attribute the work to the author and not to ESSA or its sponsors.

  • Hungy Ye

    Now this is something very interesting – does that mean that continued consumption is the cost of progress? As in, because people must continually use stuff it drives people to innovate and create newer things and stimulates economic activity (along the lines of what Bernard London was suggesting).

    • Clement Wong

      There can be innovation alongside continued consumption. It’s just that there’s a conflict of interest when it comes to innovation for longevity/durability against maximizing sales volume. That’s been noted to have some detrimental effect to the lifespan of certain goods, but there’s still been plenty of progress over the decades.

      • thwap

        Big Business clearly struck gold when they realised they could tap into human nature’s desire for material delights and ephemeral pleasures when life was all good without war, famine, disease, or any other threat forcing society to focus on physical survival – they created a society of bread and circuses just like Rome before its fall; I wonder how long it will be before THIS empire falls?

    • babipsylon –

      Imagine you wouldn’t have to buy all the stuff you own over and over again because it lasts longer. Can you imagine how much money would be available to spend on new things? I agree with Clement Wong also. Whole new sectors of industry and entertainment would be able to develop. Your quality of life would be much higher. Also, the trick to this is: don’t buy a fridge. Rent cooling. Say you rent cooling for 30 years, electricity bill for the manufacturer. They will provide you with a long lasting machine that is energy efficient! So, who wants to set up a rent shop? You can’t do that for all products, I guess, but, for the expensive ones, it’s worth it. Also, u would currently need to be in a big group to be able to cut such a deal, e.g. buy cooling for 100 houses er so.

  • Hungy Ye

    Then my question is, has innovation become dependent on continued consumption? For example lets pretend that computers are affected by planned obsolescence (and it seems ‘normal’ to replace a computer every 3-4 years or so) – the technology has advanced to a point where computers become ‘old’ after two years and start malfunctioning after 4-5.
    So the thought experiment is, if computers were built to last decades, would we still have the same level of progress?

    • Clement Wong

      That’s certainly tough to answer. I’m inclined to think that an overly-durable good would saturate the market too quickly and lead to no incentive to innovate since sales are hard to induce. That is however, a thoroughly rudimentary consideration.

      My second part in the series briefly mentions how some producers tend to trickle out improvements to their products with consistent refreshes to induce consumers to keep buying their products, and to fend off competition. In that we see ‘innovation’, but whether this slow-but-steady cycle is impeding what could otherwise be a flood of innovation they keep behind the curtains is unknown.

      • thwap

        The ironic thing is, a possible benefit of this deliberately-stifled / slowed innovation (all for the sake of greed and profits), is a less crazily- and fast-changing world. But in examples like the simple incandescent light bulb, there is NO good societal outcome for such deliberate revenue maximizing.

  • Pingback: Planned Obsolescence: Buying into Consumerism | Economics Student Society of Australia (ESSA)()

  • Monika

    This feeds into a bug bear of mine. How can pantyhose manufacturers seriously not have developed durable pantyhose yet?!?

    It’s like Don (or maybe Peggy?) from Mad Men tipped the manufacturers off in the 1960s and now they are all sitting around giggling.

    I have truly found this to be a bane of the female office-worker. Trivial, but super annoying.

  • thwap

    This is a great page, thank you for writing it and sharing it on the Internet.

    I don’t know why anyone would want get into ‘business’, when its ENTIRE system is imbued with greed to its very core.

    If you have ambitions to ‘get into business’ – unless you’re one of a rare heroes like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs who ACTUALLY want to innovate for once, the ONLY central motivation that there could possibly be, is the love of money, and greed. Concepts which have repulsed me since about the age of 12. I’m no socialist but unchecked greed in capitalism is one of the worst situations of all. ‘Anti competition’ regulation is a joke (if it seels itself as anything akin to justice and ‘the good of the people’) when planned obsolescence remains rampant and unchecked. Clearly anti-competition regulation then, is all about PANDERING TO BIG BUSINESS after all, it clearly is about big businesses whinging about OTHER big businesses getting too much of the pie. Lovely. So EVERY part of law and ‘justice’ is just about corporations getting their way in the world. No wonder I hate the system.

    • Blank Reg

      I’ve heard that North Korea is the place to go for people who hate the capitalist system.

      • thwap

        Or just keep living in the country you are and, you know, don’t partake in the capitalist system.

    • Ante18

      It’s a bit absurd to call Steve Jobs a hero considering the nature of this article. Apple are pretty big on planned obsolescence after all.

  • bill_christian

    There is an extremely straightforward explanation for this “conspiracy”. It is very easy, but utterly stupid, to extend the life of an incandescent bulb. Here is why. You double the life of a 100 watt bulb, from 1000 hours to 2000 hours. As a result, it costs you only 50 cents for 2000 hours of lighting, instead of one dollar for two bulbs. That’s good, right? Except for one crucial fact. The new bulb is way less efficient. This is a simple physics issue: life expectancy is tied directly to efficiency. The hotter the bulb, the more efficient it is and the faster it burns out. No way around it. If you want to know more, I will explain it to you in more detail. So, instead of spending $30 for electricity in 2000 hours with the efficient old short-life bulb, you will spend about $70 for electricity, and burn hundreds of pounds more coal to produce that power. So your longer life bulb will be very bad for your wallet and for the environment. The manufacturers’ cartel, and many governmental regulations made since, were a proper attempt to co-ordinate and deliver a beneficial standard bulb. Without it, companies could advertise and sell longer life bulbs, confusing the public into making bad decisions, which is a very easy thing to do and happens all the time.

    • Kentoucky Windage

      Why the fuck u cant put any data on. I like that u believe in God and honesty, but business also follow other rules… and if there is a prove that they lowered longevity, your talks about efficiency does not sound much impressive. Sorry too hurt your feelings.

      • bill_christian

        The data is rock solid on this. Very simple and straightforward. It is easy but utterly foolish to make a bulb that lasts much longer than 2000 hours. There is no conspiracy happening here. Just intelligent design.

        • Kentoucky Windage

          I am actually writing my master degree final paper work on this topic – planned obsolescence in car industry, I have to mention cases of planned obsolescence in industry generally and book Cartels in action will be delivered to me in two week, but I have a feeling that there will be no mention about how much more was the short lived bulb efficient than longer lived one – and this is quite crucial fact.
          There was a lot of political pressure for supporting local – nation companies and difficulty for GE to cover it patents rights in other countries and so on… btw limit was also on the price, it would be hard to clearly argue that it is smart to ban manufacture selling cheaper bulbs, there was also (in most of the states) no minimum luminosity limit and so on so forth, but I was just missing sources to find out more specially about efectivity of short lived bulb… any idea?

          • bill_christian

            GE had a design manual for their engineers, written about 1900, with extremely complete data on bulb life and output. There was a copy at the WPI library. It is hard to find public info about this very common device. Good luck with the project.

          • Kentoucky Windage

            Yea, but there is one minor catch Phoebus started to exist in 1920s, and btw it was in 1904 and 1911 when GE patented coiled filament and new materials for it´s manufacture – so the data from 1900 are irrelevant, since it not take into the account these improvements (not talking about Osram patent in 1903 and so on).
            On amazon, u can by almost anything, if u know title..

          • bill_christian

            1900 was a wild guess. I read it a long time ago, it was an old book. The big steps in bulb development were replacing carbon with tungsten, and adding a halogen gas (to regular bulbs… I don’t know much about modern halogen lamps). Both steps were done a long time ago, covered by this book. Not much has changed in a long time. Not really much to change. Make the filament really hot (simple to do) to get efficiency up to a few percent (going from 1.5 to 3 percent cuts electric use in half), but not so hot that it burns out too fast. That’s why industry leaders met and agreed on standards, so people who didn’t know much about it could still buy a good general purpose lamp, and not fall for getting a very long life bulb that cost 3 times as much to run, which is not good. (There was a lot of crooked stuff happening with patents and trying to corner the market, for sure. GE ate up the other small players, by “partnering” with them, illegal stuff.) The only interesting thing about standard bulbs is that the more uniform the filament, the longer it lasts, because halogen re-deposits evaporated tungsten on the cooler parts of the filament. So if the filament is super consistent, it will re-deposit evenly for a long time. But any thinner spots get hotter, evaporate more, and don’t get as much re-deposited, so they burn out at that spot. I found that very interesting.

  • Kentoucky Windage

    Damn, can u list up sources? Article is almost useless without it….

    • bill_christian

      Ken, don’t worry about it. It is okay, you can continue believing that they make bulbs fail early on purpose. It’s not true, but it’s okay.

      • Kentoucky Windage

        There is no truth …. they were just pooling durability as low as possible (read f. e. letters of GE´s CEO etc.) – legally acceptable and I understand that logic.

Founding sponsors




Gold sponsors



Silver sponsors