Design & Consumption

“Diderot by Design”

This week’s newsletter is from Henry Lee. Henry is an innovative interdisciplinary designer and researcher with a passion for creating human-centered experiences through a blend of research and design intelligence.

The French philosopher Denis Diderot was once gifted a beautiful scarlet robe. Because of the beauty and fineness of the robe, Diderot became aware that the rest of his possessions appeared comparatively lackluster and aged. Diderot decided to purchase new furnishings and objects to match the robe: a writing desk, a Moroccan leather chair, and expensive copies of the prints he already had owned. After a time, Diderot’s spending became so excessive that he fell into debt.

This phenomenon is often called the Diderot Effect.

The term itself was coined by the anthropologist Grant McCracken and consists of two ideas demonstrated by Diderot’s actions:

“The first idea is that goods purchased by consumers will align with their sense of identity and, as a result, will complement one another. The second idea states that the introduction of a new possession that deviates from the consumer’s current complementary goods can result in a process of spiraling consumption.”

The Diderot Effect primarily refers to consumers, but designers can contribute to the modern-day Diderot Effect by encouraging unhealthy consumption, or “Diderot by Design.”

Two ways that designers contribute to the Diderot Effect:

Design Solutionism

Solutionism is the belief that technology can solve all problems. At times, we can find ourselves looking for solutions to problems that don’t necessarily need solving through technology. We attempt to apply technological “fixes.” For example, the trend of designing an app for everything!

This adds to the Diderot Effect by enticing consumers with shiny new technology that doesn’t necessarily improve the experience from the old product, and at times, it may even worsen the experience. I see this regularly with student projects and among professional designers, myself included. I work heavily with artificial intelligence (AI) and see countless examples of AI trying to be applied as a fix-all. I have seen solutionism countless times in the Industrial Design space, including the long list of “smart” devices that don’t necessarily need to be smart.

Another example that can be seen as dangerous is the trend of replacing physical buttons and dials in cars with touchscreens. Touch screens require a user to look at the dashboard, while physical buttons are easier to find while keeping your eyes on the road. Politico recently reported that “the European New Car Assessment Programme mandates that key controls need physical buttons or switches.” This could be the beginning of a string of legislation that mandates certain buttons need to be physical, forcing car designers to revert to more proven ways.

Design for Ecosystems

Design for ecosystems is the desire to design everything to live in an ecosystem of products. This is both a physical and digital product phenomenon. Computers are often designed to work exclusively with devices from the same brand. This includes hardware and software. For example, the design of charging ports on devices is notorious for forcing the user to use a charger from the brand itself or to buy a new one every time it changes. Printers are also known for requiring a determined ink cartridge of a shape fitting the printer from the same brand.

This problem goes beyond software and hardware, and seeps into culture. The discussion of the “green” vs. “blue” message bubbles on an iPhone evokes a cultural conversation about class differences. If you own an iPhone and you are messaging someone with an iPhone then the messages appear blue, and it’s easier to send attachments like photos. If the person on the other end does not have an iPhone then the messages will appear green, and certain features are not available. This causes simple class distinctions and micro-discrimination because iPhones are considerably more expensive.

It has been intentionally designed this way to encourage consumers to buy into the more expensive brand, not because the product is better, but because it is a device that grants entry to a higher status. Diderot may have purchased new things simply to match the quality of the robe, but nowadays, we buy things because they have been designed to work exclusively within an ecosystem. This is by design.

Given these points, how can designers avoid contributing to the Diderot Effect?

1. Conduct and apply user research. In order for designers to have an influence on the final product we need to be able to defend our decisions effectively. This starts with conducting quality research. Even simple methods like interviews, contextual inquiries, and observational sessions can be enough to understand why someone does or does not need a touchscreen or an app. Research contributes throughout the design process by helping the designer determine and justify decisions.
2. Ask the right questions. It may seem simple, but one of the best ways to avoid solutionism is to ask, “Does this need to be an app? Why?” The same goes for ecosystems. How would an ecosystem improve the user experience? Does it make sense for the price asked?”

Although designers alone may not control all aspects of a product, a strategy, or even a consumer request, they can be at the forefront of pushing for true solutions to unmet user needs (and not leading with a technology or popular solution) and push to create open ecosystems that don’t force user behavior but instead, maintain loyalty by being the best solution, experience, and design. We can and should break through and push for better, not just more, and with a circular mentality. By conducting research and asking the right questions, we can refrain from adding to the Diderot Effect.

“Cursed be he who invented the art of putting a price on common material by tinting it scarlet.” -Denis Diderot

This is a guest post by Henry Lee

Henry Lee is an interdisciplinary designer focused on understanding and improving human experiences through Design Research, UX Design, and Industrial Design.