I've been there. I'm holding some packaging that kind of looks like it ought to be recyclable but isn't one of the standard products that are asked for. I could put it in the bin and then it'll head straight to landfill, or I could put it in the recycling and then it has a chance of being recycled, right? So it often seems better to recycle it in the hope that it might be recovered rather than consign it to certain landfill. This is known as wishcycling.

Sadly, from all that I've read about wishcycling it's not the best approach. When we put in non-recyclables into a recycling bin it contaminates the high quality recyclable materials and several things can happen:

A lot of dry recycling is still manually sorted in Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). When the quality of the input goes down it can require more people to sort it. It's not a pretty job if it also contains items that are contaminated with food waste

Non-recyclable items that processing machines aren't designed for can damage them and mean costly maintenance

Items like batteries that make it into regular recycling can start fires in paper bales which is dangerous and expensive

Non-recyclables mixed in can mean a lower quality end product to use to turn into new products. This can reduce what it can be used for and make it harder to sell

Paying more pickers and sorters and servicing machines costs money, and selling lower quality products brings less in, both of which reduce the profitability and potential viability of recycling operations

So the advice I have learned to take on board is:

Counterintuitively, if we want to recycle more, it seems at the moment we have to recycle less.

And even better is to reduce and reuse where possible in the first place.

Wishcycling

I’ve found this model useful in my thinking so many times. Also known as the Buying Hierarchy, it’s a model that illustrates a common evolution — though not perfect nor universal — in products and markets where an original innovation provides a performance or functionality benefit over what others can provide. As a result they can charge more as no one else does it.

When others come to deliver that too, then the focus for the customer can move to which delivers the most reliable quality. When the reliability is the same from different providers then we’ll choose the one that is more convenient.

Only once all else is equal does the lowest price option become the winning one. At this stage you’re selling a commodity where people could choose to get the same thing, just as easily, for the same quality in several places.

There’s a business to be made at each stage, but it’s sensible to know where you’re competing.

The original model is from Windermere Associates and widely shared by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma.

The customer value chain

This may have been obvious from day one, but despite the basic geometry of our necks it took me many years to figure out that back sleepers generally need just the one pillow and side sleepers are better off with two. Still think the pillow industry could do with a shake up though to solve basic problems like not falling into the gap between pillows, pillows made for two or pillows that more flexibly adjust as you turn over.

Back sleepers, side sleepers

The Betty Crocker effect refers to how, in the world of instant cake mixes, when something is too easy it reduces the value. The legend goes that instant cake mixtures that just needed water didn't sell nearly as well as when you needed to add an egg. Adding the egg yourself gives investment in the process of making the cake so we appreciate it more, and the extra effort demonstrates the act of love that is baking a cake.

Also easy to understand as the IKEA effect. As is so often the case, Dan Ariely explains it well. 20mins well spent watching Dan Ariely's TED talk What makes us feel good about our work?. You can jump straight to it around 12mins 50s.

The Betty Crocker Effect

Unuseless inventions. Invented by the Japanese. Worth a quick chindogu search.

Chindogu: unuseless inventions

The Peter Principle, identified as a pattern within organisations can be applied more generally such that anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging situations until it fails.

The Generalised Peter Principle

One way mirrors definitely do something, but a lot of what they accomplish is also due to maintaining dark on one side and light on another.

Sketchplanations tagged with products