From: navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh Navsaria)
Newsgroups: rec.running
Subject: Re: New York Times Article on Jazz 3000
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:41:20 GMT
Reply-To: navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh Navsaria)
Followup-To: rec.running
Organization: Boston University

In article <5700029@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> smay@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
>I don't get it. Consumer Reports rates a product highly, the product is advertised with the facts of CR's rating, and CR and its readers get all upset. Big 
>deal--if I was the mfger, I'd ignore it--unless I thought it would affect
>CR's rating of my product in the future, inwhich case CR isn't very objective
>anyway. What is CR's interest in not having their ratings mentioned by the
>manufacturer, unless it was represented as an endorsement?

   Well, manufacturers _have_ tried to ignore it, but it's hard to avoid
a) an avalanche of letters from readers threatening to not buy any of their
products ever again unless they stop using CU's name; and b) a lawsuit by CU
themselves.  Face it, in essence, you can't reprint a test result like that
w/o CU's permission, and CU isn't going to give it.  No matter what, CU will
not adjust a rating due to what the manufacturer has done in the past...I've 
seen them give a product high ratings, but somewhere in the text mention it if
the manufacturer used the ratings in the past in advertising and didn't back 
down...

   Why are they so hyper?  Well, I guess that any mention of CU's name in an ad
could be seen by someone as an endorsement since it _should_ mean that CU gave
permission for their name to be used...I think.  CU also doesn't accept any
advertising, so for them to accept any money from a corporation, whether it be
for reprint rights or something would mean they would not be as independent as
they like to be.  I guess they just want to stay away from any hint of possibly
biased behavior.

>Incidentally, I find CR's ratings of running shoes truly bizarre. The most
>durable shoe I ever found (going on 6 pairs--is this contradictory?) was
>rated as having especially poor durability by CR. I can't fault their
>objectivity, though--they just reported what happened on their wear
>simulator.
>
>cheers,
>scott

   Some ratings are indeed quite bizarre.  I mean, I've occasionally noticed 
that the particular product I might have has been recently rated as "okay" or
not-so-good or something, but yet I'm happy with it.  And sometimes finding the
stuff they rated highest is really hard...so I don't take their ratings as
gospel.  One time I needed a clock-radio, and I saw their highest-rated one was
a GE.  I searched all over the place in NYC, and couldn't find one.  I ended up
getting a Sony one (which I don't think had been rated too high), and I've been
happy with it ever since.  I mean, hey, the GE might have had the best FM
reception and AM reception and all of the lot, but if I'm going to listen to
the radio, I'm going to use my stereo, not a tinny little clock radio... Of
course, others might _want_ to listen to the radio via a clock-radio...so it
all depends on you situation...

   Also, the difference between the highest rating and the ones below it
is often not that much...which is probably another reason CU doesn't want their
ratings used in ads.  Some manufacturer will trumpet that their product was
rated number one and beat out someone else, when in truth the "other" product
was only slightly worse, and depending on price and availability in your local
area, might actually be the better buy.  Kinda like that little statement in
the SAT scores saying that differences of less than 65 points mean nothing...

   Whatever...just my two cents...er, more like 20 cents judging from how much
I wrote... 8)

				   Dipesh Navsaria
			       (navsaria@bu-pub.bu.edu)
	        "Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty"
Newsgroups: rec.running