Improved Products or Products That Improve? Are We Producing or Merely Generating?

We state the importance of maintaining a focus on improving people rather than prioritizing corporate profits alone—not only because this is the fundamental purpose of any business and ultimately more beneficial for society, but also because it is healthier for the organization in the long run.

At this point, it is worth examining in greater detail the consequences of placing profits above all else. The most significant of these is the constant production of new products, a phenomenon I refer to as “product generationism” (engendradismo). This differs from productive enterprise in that it often creates goods that fail to satisfy the needs they claim to address, sometimes bordering on deception—or constituting it outright. Such products rely heavily on excessive and often manipulative advertising efforts designed primarily to stimulate urgency and appeal to consumers’ senses.

Although product generationism may not initially appear relevant to understanding the widespread issue of labor precarity in our time, it is essential for explaining modern consumer behavior. Consumerism is not merely a natural human tendency; rather, it is largely driven by relentless advertising aimed at stimulating our senses and employing increasingly sophisticated techniques of persuasion. When profits become the primary objective—and those profits are simultaneously pressured by ever-growing advertising expenditures—it becomes easier to understand why many companies first outsourced production to regions with cheaper labor and now increasingly turn to automation. These decisions have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to labor insecurity. While this issue deserves attention, it falls beyond the scope of the present essay.

Closely associated with product generationism, though different in nature, are the practices of planned obsolescence and planned expiration, both common in technology and other manufactured goods. These practices effectively encourage consumers to exchange high-quality products for inferior alternatives sold at inflated prices.

The Free Market and the Market’s Free Fall

With these considerations in mind, it becomes less difficult to see why the so-called “free market”—which Pope John Paul II more critically described as “wild capitalism”—can become a significant obstacle not only to labor advancement but also to the availability of high-quality goods. Although it is frequently argued that only a free market can guarantee the continual emergence of better products and services, reality has shown that such a claim rests upon numerous assumptions and exceptions.

Human beings live in a constant tension between preserving comfort and pursuing personal growth. We are, to a great extent, creatures of habit. Most of us have established routines: a preferred time and place for breakfast, a familiar route to work, and regular forms of leisure and entertainment. People are generally reluctant to alter these habits because they provide comfort and predictability. The more difficult and demanding the proposed alternative appears, the greater the resistance to adopting it, even though the desire for progress remains.

Human beings possess an innate need for fulfillment and advancement—a need that is fundamentally deeper than merely improving their financial condition or obtaining more pleasurable experiences. However, the very nature of product generationism, driven by the pursuit of rapid and disproportionate profits, significantly hinders the creation of genuinely better products—and, by extension, better jobs. Product improvement and job improvement are closely interconnected, and both require substantial investment and commitment. In some cases, meaningful progress simply requires accepting lower profit margins. Yet such investments and sacrifices are often ones that Western corporations are unwilling—or unable—to make. As a result, they frequently settle for incremental or cosmetic improvements that rarely fulfill the expectations created by their advertising campaigns.

The Condition for Improvement

As previously noted, human beings naturally desire progress, and progress invariably involves change. This condition often conflicts with our preference for comfort. Nevertheless, when a product or service genuinely improves a person’s life, success depends primarily on having a sound communication strategy—one that simplifies the purchasing decision and overcomes potential prejudices or misconceptions. Today, however, many companies devote more effort to refining their advertising strategies than to creating genuinely superior products.

This leads to a crucial question: How can we determine whether we are creating a better product—not merely in technical terms, but in terms of the lifestyle it implicitly encourages?

As discussed earlier, human beings are creatures of habit, and many of those habits are directly or indirectly linked to the products they use. Consequently, whenever a new product or service is offered, what is being presented is not merely the product itself but also a new way of living and a new scale of values that may either improve or diminish the individual.

Consider the common effort to persuade consumers to replace a functioning automobile with the latest model. The supposed “improvements” of the new version may be substantial or merely superficial. The more substantial these improvements are, the more likely they are to contribute positively to the consumer’s life. Conversely, if the changes are largely cosmetic or trivial, they may ultimately have a negative effect.

The same principle applies when consumers are encouraged to acquire additional products or services rather than replacing existing ones. Such acquisitions improve people’s lives when they provide meaningful and substantial benefits. They diminish those lives when their value is largely superficial or trivial.

Admittedly, not everyone immediately recognizes the erosion of values that may accompany the adoption of products offering only superficial improvements. Yet the disappointment that follows—when the expectations generated by advertising campaigns fail to materialize after the purchase has been made—can seriously damage consumer trust. Over time, this erosion of trust has negative consequences not only for individuals but also for commercial relationships and the broader marketplace.