E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Consumer Reports
Consumer Reports has tested about 155,000 products, including this portable hair dryer in 1961.
Consumers Union, the world's largest independent product-testing organization and publisher of Consumer Reports, just celebrated its 75th anniversary.
Over the years, Consumers Union testers have used and abused about 155,000 products: car seats, cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, refrigerators, sneakers, space heaters, toasters and washing machines, plus cars, trucks and SUVs, just to name a few.
When they first tested vacuum cleaners back in 1936, a couple of models were found to have “a slight electrical shock hazard.” Today, you don’t have to worry about getting zapped by your vacuum. But the magazine’s latest tests show the performance you get still varies greatly from model to model.
Consumer Reports
Instant glue was tested in 1973 by Consumer Reports.
I was in New York last week, for the big 75th anniversary celebration and had the chance to speak to Jim Guest, the president of Consumer Reports.
“I love what I do,” Guest told me. “Consumer Reports is an American icon. We’re probably the most trusted institution in America. We’re absolutely independent. People know we’re telling the truth and helping millions and millions of people.”
Guest says today’s products are safer and more reliable than they were 75 years ago. There are also better regulations in place to protect you. But he says advertising, in many cases, “is just as misleading today as it was back then.”
Consumer Reports
Do-it-yourself perm kits were tested by Consumer Reports in 1938.
Here is a bit more of our conversation:
You’ve never accepted advertising, which means you can call it as you see it. But why do you fight so hard to keep companies from using your ratings in their ads? If you find a product to be top-rated, why don’t you want a company to say that?
To really understand what we’ve got, you have to see the whole article. Picking just a little quote here or a little fact there, that’s not really serving consumers well. And you’re right. We never take any corporate contributions or corporate money or any kind. We don’t take free samples. We have anonymous shoppers around the country who buy the products we test, so no one can rig-up the products. We maintain strict independence. Our only interest is consumers.
Consumer Reports
When automatic coffee makers started becoming a popular household appliances in the late 1950s, Consumer Reports was there.
Consumer advocates had some great victories when the Democrats controlled Congress. But now, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock. You and other consumer groups are spending a lot of time and money to stop that, which takes away from efforts to get new protections in place.
We’re working real hard. We fought for protections against financial scams. We fought for safe drugs, and safe toys. And they’re at risk. The forces on the other side are trying to capitalize on the consumer and we’re trying to protect the consumer.
You see the federal government as the answer to some of these problems, as a way to protect the consumer. But the current sentiment in this country right now among many people is that government is bad and we’ve got to get it off our backs.
Consumer Reports
In 1951, Consumer Reports tested the safety of irons.
We believe in a free market. We think consumers ought to be able to make independent choices. But they’ve got to be informed. Who can understand a credit card contract that’s 40 or 50 pages long? We just want to make sure that things are transparent, that people can understand what’s being offered and that they understand the risks. (We want) regulations requiring transparency and requiring that the truth be told — what’s wrong with that?
Your tests often uncover products that are dangerous or simply don’t perform as promised. Do companies make changes; are things fixed because you find these defects?
That’s one of the tremendously rewarding things about working at Consumer Reports. We’ll rate a product that doesn’t measure up, and then we open up our records. If the manufacturer says ‘why did you rate us poorly,’ we’ll show them the test we used. We’ll show them the data on their product. And fairly often, when we come back to rate that product again a year or two later, they’ve made improvements and corrected the deficiencies. That’s incredibly satisfying.
More Information: Consumer Reports at 75
Leave a Comment:
I love Consumer Reports. The comment that a lot of people want the government out of their lives is more common than implied. That is until they need something from the government; like snow removal, road repair or they become ill from tainted food, then government is bad because they don't move quickly enough. Some people will never be satisfied. This brings me back to where I started. Consumer Reports independence allows them to stay policy neutral and tell the truth about the consumer products they research. They also have helped set government standards for many products we use every day. Both Consumer Reports and Government are needed in this world to help curb the excesses of companies producing poor quality consumer commodities.
I used to trust Consumer Reports until I got into the manufacturing industry. The company I work for produces an adhesive-type product, and we sell to other companies that re-lable and sell as independent brands. Our exact same product made the high and low end of a Consumer Reports list. We had a good laugh at that.
I stopped listening to consumer reports many years ago. I was looking for a good film camera in the days before digital. They did not even take seriously any good cameras. Nikon, for example, got a bad rating. Why? Because the viewfinder showed precisely what would be in the picture. This, according to CR was completely unacceptable and rendered the camera useless to boobs who aim it wrong.
That's not the only problem, but it makes the point. CR does not provide an unbiased assesment of a product. They assess it based on their view of what the product should do, and they don't really give you the raw information you would need to assess it when your opinions differ. And, their assessments are always from the basest, lowest-common-denominator basis. I don't want mediocre products. Their ratings are designed for people who do.
I wish someone would do something about the plastic headlights on automobiles. By the time you make the last payment the plastic is turning hazy and cloudy. This is an obvious safety concern but nothing is being done.
Would the government allow your windshield to cloud over? No. Should be the same for the headlights.
Simple fix.
BUY NEW "PLASTIC HEADLIGHT" covers.
Trade the car.
Break them and claim them on your insurance.
Write a LETTER OF WHINE to the manufacturer and wait for
them to replace them for you.
Amen to that. Plus the buffing kits on work for a little while. I replaced both plastic headlights on my Kia Optima at the tun of 300.00 and those where the after market ones that still where apporved by the manufacturer. The 'real' ones were another 100.00+ more for both. Never had that problem with glass ones.
By law profit trumps everything else in the Corporate world. It is called a fiduciary duty and it means the Board of Directors and the CEO must make decisions that are reasonably intended to produce as much profit as possible for the stock holders or they violate this "duty." If it is less costly and more profitable for a corporation to use non flame retardant materials on children pajamas then so be it. If it is less costly and more profitable to knowingly put an exploding gas tank on a newly designed vehicle then so be it. If it is less costly and more profitable to sell medications that knowingly will kill some people who take it so be it. If it is less costly and more profitable to ship Africans from Africa to the US to be slaves then so be it. If it is less costly and more profitable to move every single job and the entire amount of money the corporation owns overseas to other countries then so be it. If it is less costly and more profitable to sell cigarettes that are designed to kill people and to make them addicted to smoking then so be it. These are all real life examples of corporate malfeasance that stems from the "duty" to make as much profit as possible. To those who say that we need corporation to create jobs I say that is a lie. #1 the corporate job sector has created zero net new jobs in over a decade! #2 If it is less costly and more profitable to fire everyone then that is what they are required by law to do. Don't kid yourselves: If it is more profitable for a corporation to destroy jobs then it is to create jobs then that is exactly what they do and are doing and have been doing for ever. When they get to one net job created then I guess you can say they created "a job" but until they do create a job then I don't want to hear anybody falsely claiming that they create jobs because history has shown they don't. Sorry but the facts are the facts and corporations are bad and we do need strict government regulation of these greedy b@st@rds.
I remember reading that CR was called un-American and worse in the 1930-40s by corporations...who were incensed that the shoddiness of their unsafe products was being revealed.
We need you CR...more now than ever.
Whoohoo!!! 75 years!
Nice!!
www.fireandrescuedecals.com
What's with that iron in the picture??
There were no real thermostatic controls in old irons, some could get hot enough to melt the plate - as clearly shown in that photo. Some got hot enough to burn a house down when left plate down on the often wood ironing board.
I have enjoyed reading CR for many years. I appreciate the fact that politics are NOT involved in determining a product's safety or recommendation. With that said, can you really lay any praise or criticism on EITHER political party for the safety or lack thereof of any products? That certainly seems to be what one of the article's Q&A sections seems to imply. Does CR really think that Democrats want safe products more than Republicans do any more than Republicans think / fear removing government from the picture will inherently and almost automatically (insinuation, based on the response) become unsafe? That's odd, given Mercedes, BMW and Porsche are great products regardless of which party is in power. Similarly, Range Rovers and Jaguars have incredibly spotty repair records, regardless of whether it was Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair as PM. Companies who want to do business long term and improve their place in the consumers' minds will build and improve upon quality products. Lead in paint is scientifically dangerous, not politically hazardous.
Love your product and its information. Please shy away from political questions / responses.
That's MSNBC talking there. Note the invalid assumption that one party wants to get rid of all consumer protections and the other just wants to protect consumers. Ignored is that the reality of the issue is that the difference lies in what each party considers reasonable protection.
What the hell is all that crap wired to the kids head? Yea, that looks safe.
CR does a lot of the testing people wish they could do if they had the time and money. Their methods aren't always perfect, but if companies were more honest and open about their testing, we wouldn't need CR would we?
Mindy123465: Your company made private label products that rated in two different categories. Did both companies buy out of the same batch or at different quality grades? That might've affected CR's evaluation.
Then again, without better disclosure of protocols from CR (and encouragement for users to follow along at their own risk) CR also runs the risk of being too black box.
I work for CSA International as a Plumbing Product Engineer, (competitors are UL and IAPMO to name a few). We test products for compliance to national and international standards, and issue certification marks for qualified products. Certification marks tell potential customers and users that a product has been evaluated by a formal process-involving examination, testing and follow-up inspection-and that it complies with applicable standards for safety and performance. Consumer Reports does not have the authority to keep us safe. They can only advise. CSA is the Watchdog for your safety. If you look, I will bet you have at least a dozen items in your home that bears the CSA Certified Mark. Refrigerators, Stoves, Ovens, Microwaves and a multitute of Plumbing Products. Most major Stores will not sell any product until it is tested and deemed safe by CSA. I feel good that all foreign crap is tested by us before the USA public can purchase. Look for the CSA Mark whenever making your purchases!
Consumer Union somehow always manages to keep its Consumer Reports magazine name and ratings out of other media outlets. And somehow Consumer Digest, who does promote the commercialization of its name, has not been able to fool those persons who actually understand what Consumers Union really does.
The one glaring failure to protect its interests from commercial exploitation was the ues of its "Best Buy" yellow tag selection in its ratings list being picked up lock-stock-and-barrel by guess who. I wonder how that happened.
I have a 1925 GE Fan that still works great. Big, heavy cast iron motor with big brass blades and the fan gaurd you could put your entire hand through it. But I'm keeping it because as a child 45 years ago I slept next to that fan and never cut anything off my body. But it could. Safety back in 1925...Really cool.