Consumers Reports VS. Consumers Digest
aest...@hotmail.com
doesn't?
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190629818.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Is a difference that C. Digest has advertisements and C. Reports
> doesn't?
yes
Shawn Hirn
"aest...@hotmail.com" <aest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is a difference that C. Digest has advertisements and C. Reports
> doesn't?
Yes, but its a big difference. Consumer Reports is non profit and funded
entirely by donations and subscription revenue; not a dime from the
companies who's products it reviews.
In contrast, Consumer Review is for profit and it derives a substantial
amount of its profit from advertising, so it is financially dependent on
the companies who's products it reviews.
Guess which magazine is more likely to provide unbiased reviews: the one
who's reviews are paid for by the companies who's products are the
subject of the reviews, or the magazine who's reviews are paid for by
subscribers and private donors?
Don K
news:srhi-4CD04B.2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
There's some interesting history to Consumer Reports. It's published by
Consumers Union, which was formed in the '30's by disgruntled employees
from Consumer Research who wanted to form a union, and ended up
putting out their own competing consumer magazine. There was a lot
of bad blood between the rival groups. At one point, Consumers
Union was listed as a subversive organization by the House of UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
I remember browsing thru back issues of Consumer Reports and Consumer Research
both magazines at the library. Their content was quite comparable IMO, but
Consumer Research had a lot less pages.
Don
Don Klipstein
>"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-4CD04B.2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> In article <1190629818.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> "aest...@hotmail.com" <aest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is a difference that C. Digest has advertisements and C. Reports
>>> doesn't?
>>
>> Yes, but its a big difference. Consumer Reports is non profit and funded
>> entirely by donations and subscription revenue; not a dime from the
>> companies who's products it reviews.
>>
>> In contrast, Consumer Review is for profit and it derives a substantial
>> amount of its profit from advertising, so it is financially dependent on
>> the companies who's products it reviews.
>>
>> Guess which magazine is more likely to provide unbiased reviews: the one
>> who's reviews are paid for by the companies who's products are the
>> subject of the reviews, or the magazine who's reviews are paid for by
>> subscribers and private donors?
>
>There's some interesting history to Consumer Reports. It's published by
>Consumers Union, which was formed in the '30's by disgruntled employees
>from Consumer Research who wanted to form a union, and ended up
>putting out their own competing consumer magazine. There was a lot
>of bad blood between the rival groups. At one point, Consumers
>Union was listed as a subversive organization by the House of UnAmerican
>Activities Committee.
Can anyone here say McCarthyism? (Although McCarthy was in the Senate
and not the House of Representatives - but that House committee was well
known for "McCarthyism".)
>I remember browsing thru back issues of Consumer Reports and Consumer
>Research both magazines at the library. Their content was quite
>comparable IMO, but Consumer Research had a lot less pages.
>
>Don
- Don Klipstein Jr. (d...@misty.com)
Logan Shaw
> Yes, but its a big difference. Consumer Reports is non profit and funded
> entirely by donations and subscription revenue; not a dime from the
> companies who's products it reviews.
I agree that's an important difference. According to their literature, they
don't even allow car manufacturers to lend them new cars to review, on the
theory that manufacturers might hand-pick cars (or at least screen out ones
with problems) to give a more favorable impression. Instead, they send someone
to a regular dealer to just buy a car the normal way, and that person does not
identify themselves as being associated with Consumer Reports. It costs a lot
of money that way, but it does go a long way toward ensuring that there are no
opportunities for the car manufacturers to sway the outcome.
Having said that, I'm not entirely happy with everything about Consumer Reports.
When I bought my current car, it was a new model that year, and the Consumer
Reports book on new cars didn't have it listed yet. There were ads all over
the place saying I could get more up-to-date info by subscribing to their web
site, so I did, at a cost of around $40. And despite the fact that the car had
been out 6 months or so by that point, there was no information about it at all
on the web site. Apparently they do all their reviews basically during one
period every year and then post them on the web site, but their ads lead you
to believe their web site is a lot more up-to-date than the book, which is
published once a year. I was a little annoyed about having wasted $40,
particularly as it felt like I was all but tricked into it by an organization
that is supposed to be about protecting consumers.
The other thing about them is not necessarily a flaw with them, but it is
something to be aware of, IMHO. And that is this: when they review a
product, they have some things in mind that they value, and these things do
not always line up with what everyone else values. For instance, they'll
review a car and complain that the ride is rough and uncomfortable or that
the engine is loud, but they seem to miss out on the concept that they're
reviewing a sports car, which isn't supposed to have a cushy, comfortable
ride. In some cases, they seem to miss the entire point of a product, and
at other times, they just don't want the same things everyone else wants
(and of course they couldn't always). Basically, as a general rule, they
seem to approach every product as if the only value the product provides
is its purely practical value. Everything is done from a utilitarian
point of view. That's fine for a washing machine, but not so great for
(say) a barbecue grill or something that's *supposed* to be fun.
- Logan
Rick
>
> Is a difference that C. Digest has advertisements and C. Reports
> doesn't?
And you can't spot the huge potential for conflicts of interest with the
consumer magazine that accepts advertising? Hint: When was the last time
you read anything even hinting of a bad car review in an automotive
magazine plastered with advertising.
Rick
Seerialmom
>
> The other thing about them is not necessarily a flaw with them, but it is
> something to be aware of, IMHO. And that is this: when they review a
> product, they have some things in mind that they value, and these things do
> not always line up with what everyone else values. For instance, they'll
> review a car and complain that the ride is rough and uncomfortable or that
> the engine is loud, but they seem to miss out on the concept that they're
> reviewing a sports car, which isn't supposed to have a cushy, comfortable
> ride. In some cases, they seem to miss the entire point of a product, and
> at other times, they just don't want the same things everyone else wants
> (and of course they couldn't always). Basically, as a general rule, they
> seem to approach every product as if the only value the product provides
> is its purely practical value. Everything is done from a utilitarian
> point of view. That's fine for a washing machine, but not so great for
> (say) a barbecue grill or something that's *supposed* to be fun.
>
> - Logan
I also subscribe to CR....and I think your assessment is pretty
accurate. For example; when they do the vacuum cleaner reviews...they
measure weight of "talc" pulled up. However...end users look at 1.
how full the bag gets and 2. is hair/lint etc picked up. People who
own Dyson vacs love them...especially when they vacuum with an average
vac and then go back over with the Dyson only to see the canister fill
up. But for other things...I do want an unbiased opinion, so their
"value " concept works for me (if you don't need bells/whistles, buy
the cheaper model).
James
>
> - Show quoted text -
I worked at a major software company in the 80s, who was just putting
the finishing touches on a great piece of software most of you have
heard of.
A certain PC magazine came to town and we had an appointement to meet
the editorial board and demo our new software. There was also a mini
trade fair where we could show invitees and readers of the mag our
stuff.
The editors were somewhat cagey about whether we would get a review.
The ad salespeople though played hard ball. While they never came out
and said it was pay for play (buy an ad to get reviewed) I'm pretty
sure thats the impression that wanted us to get. We didn't buy an ad,
we didn't get reviewed. Eventually we did both.
This was from the "leading" publication. I don't trust them at all.
James
mark...@earthlink.net
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > Yes, but its a big difference. Consumer Reports is non profit and funded
> > entirely by donations and subscription revenue; not a dime from the
> > companies who's products it reviews.
>
> seem to approach every product as if the only value the product provides
> is its purely practical value. Everything is done from a utilitarian
> point of view. That's fine for a washing machine, but not so great for
> (say) a barbecue grill or something that's *supposed* to be fun.
A product that doesn't do what it claims to do is not fun. If the
grill gets in the way of you grilling your food and doing it well, it
isn't a fun grill.
Rod Speed
> aest...@hotmail.com wrote
Its worse than that. When was the last time you read a stinker of
a review in any operation that depends on the car manufacturers to
supply them with cars to review, except when the model is obsolete ?
The problem is that it costs a lot of money to actually buy the
cars, and an operation that doesnt accept any advertising
wont necessarily actually have that sort of money available.
The short story is that there is no answer to that problem.
James
> Rick <ricka...@rcn.com> wrote
>
> > aesthe...@hotmail.com wrote
I've been in a major manufacturer's headquarters and seen their fleet
of press vehicles.
First off, many manufacturers have big travel junkets for vehicle
launches. They fly them in, wine and dine them, and let them drive the
vehicles in great surroundings. Thats a recipe for a good review.
Scondly, the press fleet is not representative of what you find on the
lot. They are typically the high end of the line, with all the
options, the bigger engines etc. They have been very well maintained
by the mechanics who train dealer mechanics. They are detailled every
time they come back.
The press fleet is booked out well in advance. The nicer the reviews
you give, the more likely you are to be first in line for the next
model you want to review. Don't think they don't pour over every
review - they do.
So the reviews tend to be on the happy side. If they aren't the class
leader, they generally say they are improving.
I prefer the shootout type of reviews in the magazine where they
compare 3 or 4 or 5 in the same catagory. Then you get a sense of the
differences.
James
Rod Speed
Trouble is that that sort of review is an even bigger problem as far as
getting the cars to do the review with are concerned. You're even more
over the barrel when you need to get 3 or 4 or 5 cars simultaneously
from 3 or 4 or 5 manufacturers if you dont just buy the cars outright
and then sell them after the review has been done.
Don K
news:slrnffh1c...@manx.misty.com...
> In article <mMWdnfvkO7Rq62Xb...@comcast.com>, Don K wrote:
>>There's some interesting history to Consumer Reports. It's published by
>>Consumers Union, which was formed in the '30's by disgruntled employees
>>from Consumer Research who wanted to form a union, and ended up
>>putting out their own competing consumer magazine. There was a lot
>>of bad blood between the rival groups. At one point, Consumers
>>Union was listed as a subversive organization by the House of UnAmerican
>>Activities Committee.
>
> Can anyone here say McCarthyism? (Although McCarthy was in the Senate
> and not the House of Representatives - but that House committee was well
> known for "McCarthyism".)
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to smear CU. I just think it has an interesting
history. Also no expanded meaning to the word "interesting" is intended.
Don
Bernardo Gui
<lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>The other thing about them is not necessarily a flaw with them, but it is
>something to be aware of, IMHO. And that is this: when they review a
>product, they have some things in mind that they value, and these things do
>not always line up with what everyone else values.
>
> - Logan
I don't think that is a flaw at all. Yes, they do sometimes value
things that I don't value, but consumers come in all flavors and we
don't all want the same thing. CR breaks down their reviews into
categories so that you can pick and choose which ones are important to
you and then ignore the rest.
If you don't share their particular values on a particular product,
then ignore their 'quick picks' and look at the details. They still
provide excellent information to help make an educated choice.
Consumers Digest's primary value doesn't even appear until the toilet
paper runs out...
Bernardo
Steve
>At one point, Consumers
>Union was listed as a subversive organization by the House of UnAmerican
>Activities Committee.
I think my dog was listed as a subversive by HUAC. Dickie Nixon was a
very busy guy...
--
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
...P.J. O'Rourke
Steve
>Having said that, I'm not entirely happy with everything about Consumer Reports.
>When I bought my current car, it was a new model that year, and the Consumer
>Reports book on new cars didn't have it listed yet.
Also, dunno why they spend their limited resources reviewing very
expensive luxury cars that wouldn't be considered by the vast majority
of their subscribers.
m...@privacy.net
>expensive luxury cars that wouldn't be considered by the vast majority
>of their subscribers.
Bingo!!!
My beef with them as well....and I've been a LONG time
subscriber of CR
Rick
Yeah but that's what Consumer Reports does. There's no need for CR to
hang onto the vehicles once they are done with the reviews. I recall
this being brought up in the magazine several years back. Employees are,
of course, given first choice to purchase the review vehicles. For a
place like Consumer Reports it's not a big a problem as you may think it
is.
Rick
Shawn Hirn
Steve <y...@svb.inv> wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >Having said that, I'm not entirely happy with everything about Consumer
> >Reports.
> >When I bought my current car, it was a new model that year, and the Consumer
> >Reports book on new cars didn't have it listed yet.
>
> Also, dunno why they spend their limited resources reviewing very
> expensive luxury cars that wouldn't be considered by the vast majority
> of their subscribers.
Because some of their subscribers appreciate such reviews.
Goomba38
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Having said that, I'm not entirely happy with everything about Consumer Reports.
>> When I bought my current car, it was a new model that year, and the Consumer
>> Reports book on new cars didn't have it listed yet.
>
> Also, dunno why they spend their limited resources reviewing very
> expensive luxury cars that wouldn't be considered by the vast majority
> of their subscribers.
Says who? Being frugal doesn't mean you don't buy expensive items. It
just means you buy them for the best price. Affluent people are savvy
shoppers just like anyone less affluent, and probably are a very large
bulk of the subscriber base to CR. CR subscribers are also most likely
better educated which also usually means higher earners, and potential
spenders.
Anthony Matonak
> Steve <y...@svb.inv> wrote:
>> Also, dunno why they spend their limited resources reviewing very
>> expensive luxury cars that wouldn't be considered by the vast majority
>> of their subscribers.
>
> Because some of their subscribers appreciate such reviews.
Because they can take the cars home when they're done. :)
Anthony
Shawn Hirn
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
I believe CR sells the cars it reviews as used, but I am not certain of
that.