My discussion is about two readings, the first being From Factory to Family:The Creation of a Corporate Culture in the Larkin Company of Buffalo, New York by Howard R. Stanger and The Art and Craft of the Machine by Frank Lloyd Wright.
In the 1880's to late 1890's, being clean was the latest and greatest thing. Bathing and hygiene became socially expected, and there couldn't be better news for the soap business. Profits for Larkin soared, and their mail-order advertising and clever "Larkin Idea" marketing plan set them apart from other soap manufacturers. Soon after, in the early 20th century, the Larkin motto "From Factory-to-Family: Save All Cost Which Adds No Value," never rang more true when Larkin developed it's latest marketing strategy of the Larkin Club of 10. The idea here was that 10 families could pool their savings, buy expensive soap, and be rewarded with premiums. Organizers of the Club then became entrepreneurs, selling the soap to family, friends, and neighbors.
When reading this article, I was impressed by Larkin's marketing. As a person who is from what is considered to be an extremely isolated and rural community, I think Larkin was smart to tap into the rural market, where often not many brand options exist. By offering premiums to customers, Larkin established a brand loyalty and a sense of trust in consumers, who are often ignored due to their rural location.
I feel a little more critical of the Frank Lloyd Wright commissioned Larkin Administration Building built in 1906. While I think it significant that Larkin conveyed its principles of cleanliness, health, and happiness to its consumers through advertising, I think that the idea of "The Larkin Family of Employees" pushes it over the edge a little bit. It's important that a workplace is a place of comfort for an employee, and it's great that Larkin gave employees so many welfare options, but by doing this, Larkin's corporate culture detracts from their previous emphasis on family entrepreneurial spirit of the late 1800's. Previously, Larkin had given women an extra source of income for their families and greater financial security. As we move into the 20th century, Larkin began to push their consumption agenda further with elaborate showrooms and retail shops decked out with Larkin premium goods and salespersons in the showroom with a wealth of knowledge about Larkin products.
Going back to the design of the Larkin Administration Building, this was Frank Lloyd Wright's first ever commissioned work, and I think it has an interesting relation to Wright's Art and Craft of the Machine. The Larkin Administration building was designed for maximum efficiency. Offices and desks were laid out so that employees could be seen by others, and therefore not slack off. The top floor dining area could fit a large number of people, but the kitchen section small and difficult to access so that employees wouldn't linger too long. It also used skylights as a source of natural light, and was one of the first buildings to have fresh air circulating. All of these qualities make it an ideal environment for working and hence, turning profits. In FL Wright's writing, he suggests that the machine is capable of creating art, but we just need to know how to use it in accordance with materials.
While it is true that the machine lends the possibility of creative expansion due to less time spent on labor, what about William Morris' suggestion that the machine facilitates greed and luxury? I think the Larkin Administration Building in some respects is an example of the greed and luxury of the machine. Wright may have designed the building using the machine incredibly well for its purpose, however the building did end up demolished in 1950. The demolition of the Larkin Administration Building seems to take away from Wright's argument of using the machine to idealize nature without waste.
I feel like this was a little longer than what I had hoped. Next time I'll try to be more concise.
ReplyDeleteGabe, I think you bring up some interesting points. Having grown up in a rural area I couldn't help but marvel at the ingenuity of the Larkin marketing strategy. My own mother shops mostly through the Sears catalogue, and my sister is an Avon lady for the sole purpose of buying Christmas gifts for our Mother. The idea of the direct sell is so pervasive now with people buying books online from Amazon (causing small independent bookstores to shut their doors). You can buy anything you want from your home and it will be shipped to you. The post man becomes the middle man on a sense.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I totally agree with your take on the FLW building though. Although it does carry the same insidious intimation of a panopticon, I read it as an expansion of the "Familial Culture" of the company. The fact that the people who are the most visible and accessible where the executives fosters an atmosphere of transparency. Any workplace strives for efficiency, as it should. The openess of the design allows for the maximum output of work for the least effort/time. I don't think Larkin was pushing the "consumption agenda" further by opening up the showrooms. They always had the same agenda, they were just trying to readjust their marketing strategy to a changing demographic. I think the move was to make themselves more accessible to the urban population, while maintaining their connection with the rural one.
I found Wright's statement about the domesticity of the workplace interesting aswell. Perhaps this is an ongoing theme for me because of my present circumstance, but it brings me back to thoughts of gendered spaces. The workplace, which was typically the man's domain was becoming permeated with women at an increasing rate near the turn of the century, and this is reflected in the domesticity of the design. I admit, I have not read the "Art and Craft of the Machine" yet, so maybe my reading of Wright's intentions will change after I get the chance!
In any case, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the Larkin Administration Building, with it's employee annex and the mini city of the Google office. It really seems as if large companies have found the gold ticket to production - Give your employees absolutely no reason to leave!
I feel I should commend you for taking on two huge readings and drawing comparisons between them. Good job!
The Google office was my immediate association as well, and when you consider the superpower that Google has become in recent years, clearly it's a successful model for an office.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Larkin Administration Building is a comforting environment for employees, I was more in favour of Larkin's grassroots entrepreneurial marketing, because it allowed for Larkin club organizers to remain at home and be with their actual families while still working.
I am enjoying this exchange. Most of my work is in corporate culture. It's a challenging field because the tension between greed and values such as altruism is always present. Corporations are often under tremendous pressure to placate shareholders and drive share price so that people will have faith in the company so that they will buy product and/or buy shares so that they can keep the doors open so that they can employ people so that they can create the things they want to create. Within this is often a true desire to create something meaningful and to uplift people; on the other hand, there is often a mercenarial drive to show profit and feed ones own needs, both corporately speaking and personally.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting example is Zappos. Zappos is often seen to be an experiment in the corporate world: if you can treat employees really, really well, then what happens to profits? Any analysis of Zappos, for instance, presents these tensions.
Excellent repartee.
ReplyDeleteGabe, maybe I misunderstood, but my impression was that the Larkin Clubs were still functioning, but that the office was built for handling the sheer volume of mail orders as well as product development type work. The article mentions the women hand addressing envelopes etc. If you think of the scale of this business in the time period ($28 million in 1920!) they would have needed a small army just to process mail orders.
ReplyDelete