2nd Feb 2009, 13:49
The part of Consumer Reports that is doing the collection and analysis of reliability data is the part that I have great respect for and I rely on. Fortunately CR passes that on relatively directly and it is very useful to us consumers.
But there is also the part of Consumer Reports that has to write interesting stories and entertain people. Whatever they can do to keep those subscription dollars coming in.
I know this is ancient history, but the market place realities of where CR is trying to survive are largely the same as when they were involved in the libel lawsuit with Bose Corporation. Before suing CR, Dr. Amar Bose met with the editorial board to see why his speakers had gotten such bad reviews. The head of CR asked him, "Dr. Bose, why do you think people read Consumer Reports?" Dr. Bose replied "I suppose so people can make informed decisions." The head of CR then replied, "No Dr. Bose. People read CR because they want to be entertained. They want to read that you can buy something for $10 that is just as good as what someone else paid $500 for." Twice CR lost the libel lawsuit because it was proved they made harmful false statements in print and they had done no objective testing before making the claims. But CR won at the Supreme Court level because Bose was not able to prove that CR intended to harm Bose. (That is US law, in the UK intent is not needed to prove libel.) I got this out of either Stereo Review or High Fidelity magazine from the mid 1980's. Like I said, it is ancient history, and CR has changed a lot since then and it is more responsible. But if you are looking for it, you can still see at times when the entertainment mission is there.
2nd Feb 2009, 01:42
"That's because some of us think that the experiences of hundreds of owners are more conclusive and accurate than the ramblings of an uncle as a research source."
I've researched that way too, so not only do I have the ramblings of an uncle as my source of research, the vehicle I've owned has very FEW sad faces ;-)