Green: It doesn’t have to be ugly
I can think of, well, nobody who is racing to the store to purchase the Honda Puyo, an eco-friendly concept car released last Fall. And, gee, I wonder why. Any thoughts? It might have something to do with its humble appearance, which seems to be the result of a collision between a toaster and a golf cart. Or maybe a loaf of bread and a golf cart. I can’t decide.
In any case, Honda’s affront to aesthetics raises an important question: If a company can make a product that’s bad for the environment, but looks “cool” (or is advertised as being “cool”), why can’t they create a product that’s good for the environment and also looks “cool”? Good luck trying to convince anyone that the Puyo looks “cool.” It must fall short of even the geekiest standards. Why does something that’s eco-friendly have to look like a piece of crap (on wheels, in this case)?
The answer: corporations don’t want people to actually buy these products. I know what you’re thinking. Why would a company make a product that it doesn’t want people to buy? Easy. So that it can stop making the product and claim that people don’t want it. I know this is beginning to sound like circular logic, but it isn’t. See, here’s the process:
Consumers create demand for “green” products/government regulations require green products/etc., which are perceived as too expensive to produce by corporations (or they would already be in production, right?) >
corporations put out ugly product with a creepy advertising campaign >
sales remain low >
corporations claim lack of public interest and pull products from the market.
I know, this sounds totally looney and antithetical to reason. But just take a look at the Puyo. Would you call THAT reasonable (not to be confused with practical)? Plus, this is exactly what happened with the electric car in California. Don’t get me wrong, now. I like Honda. I drive one, in fact. But the Puyo is ugly on purpose.
