NBSIR 78-1450

Product Selection for the

Voluntary Consumer Product

Information Labeling Program

E C. McDowell

E. M. Robertson

Product Systems Analysis Division

Center for Consumer Product Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

and

S. M. Spivak

Department of Textiles and Consumer Economics

University of Maryland

College Park, Md 20742

March 1978

Final Report

Prepared for National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

NBSIR 78-1450

PRODUCT SELECTION FOR THE

VOLUNTARY CONSUMER PRODUCT

INFORMATION LABELING PROGRAM

E. C. McDowell

E. M. Robertson

Product Systems Analysis Division

Center for Consumer Product Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

and

S. M. Spivak

Department of Textiles and Consumer Economics

University of Maryland

College Park, Md. 20742

March 1 978

Final Report

Prepared for National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many members of the Product Systems Analysis Division

contributed to this work. During the early stages of the

project, C. Fried and R. Kelly made direct contributions,

concerning consumer information and behavior, and data on

consumer products, respectively. The following people

commented at several stages during the development of the

product selection method, and were especially helpful in

weeding out unworkable ideas: C. Fried, J. Harrison,

R. Hendrickson, J. Kim, M. Meyerson, R. Mills, J. Persensky,

A. RameySmith, H. Van Cott and R. Williams. Special acknowledgement is due to R. Bloss and B. McGuire who have applied

several developmental versions of the method and have provided

valuable comments based on their experience with it. We

thank all of these people for their help.
'

I

•

.
CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract i

1. Introduction 1

2. Information for Purchase Choices 2

2.1 Adequate Information 2

2.2 Information Sources and Their Control .... 3

2.3 Adding Information to Increase Adequacy ... 4

3. Development of Criteria 6

3.1 Program Goals and Strategies 6

3.2 Need for and Source of Criteria 7

4. Description and Use of Criteria 8

4.1 Narrative Description of Criteria 8

4.2 CPILP Product Selection Chart 14

4.3 Use of the Chart 14

5. Example 18

6. Information Sources for Product Selection 24

6.1 Product Attributes and Performance 24

6.1.1 Comparative Testing Journals 24

6.1.2 Consumers Index 25

6.1.3 Consumer Review 2 5

6.1.4 Product Information File 26

6.1.5 Product Standards 26

6.1.6 Trade and Professional Associations . . 27

6.1.7 Safety Information 27

6.2 Economic Data on Products .27

6.2.1 U.S. Government Data and Information

Sources 27

6.2.2 Predicasts Information Retrieval

System 29

6.2.3 Appliance and Other Product Survey

Data 30

6.2.4 Consumer Complaint Data 30

6.3 Aggregate Consumer Attitudes 31

6.4 Buyer Behavior Models 38

iii
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Appendix A. Product Folders in the Product

Information File 40

Appendix B. Current Industrial Reports Available

for Consumer Products 41

Appendix C. Sample Current Industrial Report 42

References 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. CPILP Product Selection Chart 15

Figure 2. Sample Worksheet for Electric Irons .... 19

Figure 3. Information on Electric Irons 20
PRODUCT SELECTION FOR THE VOLUNTARY CONSUMER

PRODUCT INFORMATION LABELING PROGRAM

Eugene C. McDowell

Elizabeth M. Robertson

Steven M. Spivak

The U.S. Department of Commerce has commenced

a voluntary consumer product information labeling

program (CPILP) . Any person may propose products

to be labeled under that program. This document

presents a method for screening proposed products

to determine whether they are appropriate for

labeling. The method also provides a foundation

for documenting a finding of need for a label.

Key words: Consumer information ; consumer products;

labeling; selection.

1. INTRODUCTION

This report describes a method of product selection for

the Voluntary Consumer Product Information Labeling Program

(CPILP), officially begun on June 24, 1977 by the U.S.

Department of Commerce (DOC) . This report is a manual for

users of the product selection method.

Any person may request the Secretary of Commerce to find

that there is a need to label a particular consumer product

under CPILP. If the Secretary finds that a need does exist

under CPILP, a Federal Register notice must be published

setting out that finding and its basis. If the Secretary

determines that there is no need to establish a specification

for labeling the requested consumer product, or if sufficient

resources are lacking, she may decline the request, stating

the appropriate reasons.

, Thus, in the case of either acceptance or rejection of the

requested finding of need, the Secretary must respond stating

the reasons for the decision. It is therefore necessary to have

a systematic method to determine the need for CPILP labeling

of any consumer product suggested for the program. This report

provides such a method that can be used by CPILP staff at

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and DOC. It can

also be used by industry as a common analytical framework

for detailed discussion on CPILP selection with DOC. Further,

the procedure could be adapted to other selection problems.
2 . INFORMATION FOR PURCHASE CHOICES

2 . 1 Adequate Information

The consumer's ability to purchase products with a realistic expectation of their performance is one of many

factors determining the efficiency of the national economy.

A purchase based on inaccurate perceptions can lead to a

mismatch between the performance of a product and the performance needed or desired by its user. Thus resources are

expended without a commensurate return of utility. One

manifestation of this is consumer dissatisfaction, which is

bad for producers as well as consumers. Misallocation of

consumer resources, even when it goes unnoticed, is a drag

on the whole economy.

Purchase choices representing an optimum allocation

of resources can result from only two things: (1) blind

luck and (2) decisions based on adequate information about

the products. The object of CPILP is to serve producers

and consumers by providing a channel through which producers

can send accurate and credible information about their

products to the consumer, so the consumer can make an informed

purchase choice which will be closer to optimum than an

uninformed choice would be. This means a purchase choice made

with adequate information to enable the consumer to match

the characteristics of the available makes or models of a product to his or her own needs and wants. Some of the

relevant product information concerns objectively measurable

attributes and some concerns subjective attributes such as

style. CPILP deals only with the objective information.

Adequate information meets the following criteria:

a. Most of the product information important to the

consumer's purchase choice must be available (usually

from a combination of sources: personal inspection,

labels, advertising, etc.).

b. It must be determined on the same (or equivalent)

basis for all brands and models.

c. It must be presented in a form that is easily

comparable among brands and models.

d. It must not be erroneous or otherwise likely to

mislead consumers in their purchase choices.

Note: This criterion is failed if:

(1) the product often violates consumers'

expectations; or
( 2 ) consumers make specious product differentiations, i.e. , perceive makes or models

as different when in fact they are essentially

the same? or

(3) essential differences among makes or models

are obscure, so consumers fail to perceive

the differences.

e. The information must be likely to be believed and

trusted by shoppers.

f. Shoppers must be unlikely to overlook it. It must

be noticed by most shoppers who could use it. This

implies point-of-sale information.

g. They must be likely to correctly understand it.

h. It must be sufficiently simple and otherwise

easy to use that they are likely to make use

of it.

i. The information must be available for most brands

and models.

All but the last criterion are criteria for the label

itself; the last one, of course, refers to the participation

by producers. Criteria a and h tend to be opposed to each

other; the former places a lower limit on the amount of

information, while the latter implies an upper limit. It

is conceivable that for some products these two criteria

cannot be met simultaneously. Criterion f rules out

comparative testing reports (such as those published by

Consumers Union and Consumers' Research) in the context of

informative labeling; such reports serve an important function,

but de facto serve a more limited audience than is intended

in CPILP.

In the context of a consumer's personal experience in

using a product (as opposed to reading a label about the

prpduct) , the criteria for adequate information boil down to

criteria a and d.

2.2 Information Sources and Their Control

Information may come to a consumer through several

sources, singly or in combination: (1) personal inspection

of the product at the point of sale, (2) prior personal experience in using the product, (3) informative labels, (4)

certification marks, (5) advertisements (e.g., in mass media),

(6) brochures, (7) store displays, (8) salespeople, (9) friends

- 3 -
('word-of-mouth* information), CIO) comparative testing reports

and (11) miscellaneous sources such as news stories and

regulatory actions.

The control over the information from each source is in

the hands of the consumer, the producer or others. Inspection

and personal experience are entirely under the consumer's

control. Informative labeling, certification, advertisements

and brochures result from the producer's initiatives. Usually

store displays do also, although in some cases the merchant

creates them (not under the control of the producer or the

consumer) . The information provided by salespeople is not

under the producers or consumer's control, except that where

the salespeople are employees of the producer the latter has

some control. Information provided by friends, comparative

testing organizations and miscellaneous sources is controlled

by neither the producer nor consumer.

All the information controlled by the producer functions

as advertising. Informative labeling is one among several

alternative channels available to the producer through which

to send product information to potential customers.

2 . 3 Adding Information to Increase Adequacy

For products where adequate information is not now

available, it would benefit producers and consumers to augment

the available information through one or more sources.

Inspection has little potential for augmentation as an

information source; in a few cases, changes in packaging may

make more information available through inspection. Prior

experience with a product, as an effective source of informatior

for a purchase choice, is tantamount to the consumer's

experimentation in the marketplace by buying and trying

various makes or models, thus acquiring information by trial

and error. This is feasible for some products but not for

others. As an information source this can be augmented by free

or reduced-price samples, but the producer cannot generally

afford this as a permanent thing.

Informative labeling and certification have potential

for augmentation. Certification is appropriate where the

only information needed by the consumer is the fact that some

competent organization has determined that the certified

make or model meets or exceeds defined minimum requirements.

If different consumers have different needs and wants, there

is no single standard of adequacy, and the comparative

information provided by informative labeling is appropriate,

rather than certification.

- 4 -
Information can always be augmented through the other

information sources controlled by the producer (mass-media

advertisements, etc. )

.

Finally, the sources controlled by others have little

potential for augmentation to provide adequate information.

Comparative testing is limited by its funding through subscriptions as well as limited in its audience. The other

sources are random in their coverage of products. For example,

for any given product on which consumers generally do not already

have adequate information, a given consumer may or may not

have available a friend from whom to obtain such information.

Even if the information is augmented, the adequacy of

the information is not the same for all sources. Consider

these four major causes of the inadequacy of information:

(1) some of the information important for an informed purchase

choice is absent, (2) the information is not comparable among

makes and models, (3) the information is misleading, and

(4) the information is disbelieved.

Information obtained through personal inspection or

through experience in using the product will be believed by

the consumer, but depending on the nature of the product the

other three inadequacies may or may not exist. Information

from an informative labeling program such as CPILP —coordinated

to assure completeness, comparability and accuracy, and

recognized by a government agency—should minimize these

inadequacies. Certification, if appropriate for the product,

may also escape these inadequacies, but a lack of consumer

recognition can erode its credibility, and consumer misunderstanding can cause the consumer to be misled. Advertisements,

brochures, store displays and salespeople tend to suffer

from a lack of credibility and a lack of information comparability among makes and models, and they may have the other

inadequacies as well. Information from friends, when available,

is likely to be believed, and it may be comparable and accurate;

however it cannot in general be expected to be available.

Comparative testing reports are in principle available to

anyone who wants them, and their information is generally

comparable, accurate and believable, but since the information

is not available at the point of sale it is in fact not used

by the majority of consumers. Information from miscellaneous

sources is variable in all respects and cannot be relied on

as a source of adequate information.

The upshot of this discussion is the following. For

certain products, adequate information may be available from

inspection or experience. (When this is so, there is no need

for informative labeling.) Informative labeling and certification are particularly strong candidates as information

- 5 -
sources that, in combination with other information sources,

can provide adequate information to consumers. Advertisements,

brochures, store displays and salespeople are weak candidates

as sources of adequate information, for several reasons.

Friends and miscellaneous sources are not dependable sources

of adequate information. Comparative testing reports (when

available for the product in question and for most makes and

models of the product) usually provide adequate information

to those consumers who avail themselves of them, but they do

not reach the broad audience intended by an informative

label

.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA

3 . 1 Program Goals and Strategies

To serve as a guide in the development of criteria

governing the selection of products for CPILP, the overall

goals of the labeling program were defined as follows:

• To increase consumer satisfaction with purchase

decisions

• To reduce complaints and returns to the merchant

and manufacturer

9 To increase competition in product performance

• To increase price competition

• To increase the informational value of advertising

There are two major kinds of strategy question, concerning

the time frame and concerning the breadth of market exposure.

The time frame relates to how much time will be required to

label a given product and how soon this result is needed.

There is a choice, then, between products that can be labeled

quickly and those that will require a long preparation that

includes, for example, the development of test methods. In

the initiation phase of CPILP the emphasis will be placed on

rapidly achieving benefits for the consumer, and this implies

the selection of products that can be labeled within a short

time. Since it can be expected that many of the products

for which a CPILP label can be most valuable will be products

requiring a long lead time for labeling, there will be a gradual shift to a continuation phase of CPILP in which

there is a mix of short and long lead times. Some indicators

of a short lead time are (1) the industry's expressed interest

in labeling, (2) simple information requirements for the

- 6 -
label, (3) the existence of suitable test methods, and (4)

label information that already has been developed or that

will be quick and cheap to obtain.

The second major strategy question is how much exposure of

a label to consumers is required, to obtain the consumers'

recognition and use of the label. This is a question on

which empirical research could be very useful. This strategy

question implies a choice between broad market coverage and

concentration on a selected market segment. Broad market

coverage implies the selection of products that are used

by large sections of the consuming public, or a selection of

products used by different sections of the public, to spread the

benefits of CPILP as widely as possible (so long as they

are not spread so thin as to lose their effect) . Concentration

on a selected market segment would be designed to saturate

a limited group of consumers with many labels, on the premise

that this is necessary for the labels to be effective.

Under this strategy, the products selected for labeling

would be a group of products used by an identifiable segment

of the consuming population, and this would also facilitate

program evaluation research.

•

3 . 2 Need for and Source of Criteria

Under the established procedures for CPILP [1]*, candidate

products for labeling are proposed by any person, including

individuals, manufacturers, government agencies and others.

However, not all products are appropriate for labeling under

CPILP. For example, works of art are inappropriate because a

consumer's purchase choice is based on subjective factors

rather than objective measures. Prescription drugs are

inappropriate because they are regulated by the Food and Drug

Administration. Electrical fuses are not appropriate because

the consumer neither needs nor wants comparative performance

information; the needed information (in addition to the

identity of the product, including its electrical current rating)

is simply a certification that it will perform as intended.

Locomotive bearings, being intended for industrial use, are

not consumer products and are therefore inappropriate for

CPILP. Thumbtacks are not appropriate for performance labeling

since there is little if anything to know about them that can't

be seen. These and other such reasons for excluding products

from CPILP are the beginning of a set of criteria by which

products proposed for labeling can be evaluated as to their

appropriateness

.

*Figures in brackets indicate the literature references.

- 7 -
The many reasons for excluding a product from CPILP can

be translated into requirements for the appropriateness of a product for labeling. Some of these requirements are related

to each other as general and detailed criteria or as alternativi

to each other. As a result they can be systematized into

a hierarchy wherein the principal question, "Is this product

appropriate for labeling under CPILP?", is divided into five

major parts, each of which is further divided into detail,

and so on. These criteria are presented in chapter 4.

4. DESCRIPTION AND USE OF CRITERIA

4 . 1 Narrative Description of Criteria

The following outline presents, in the form of questions,

the criteria answering the question, "Is this product appropria

for labeling under CPILP?" For this to be answered in the

affirmative, questions I, III, IV and V must be answered

affirmatively, and question II must be answered in the negative

All the criteria, of course, are to be understood within the

context set by the goals of CPILP, listed in chapter 3.

In the following section (4.2) these criteria are abbreviated in the form of a chart. Readers who expect to use the

chart should first read the following outline.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PRODUCT

IS APPROPRIATE FOR LABELING UNDER CPILP

I. Is this product a consumer product? (This is defined

in the Procedures for CPILP [1] as "any article produced

or distributed for sale to a consumer for the use,

consumption, or enjoyment of such consumer. The term

does not include products customarily intended

primarily for business, commercial or industrial use.")

II. Would a CPILP label be likely to become obsolete soon?

(For this to be Yes, either A or B (or both) must be Yes

A. Is the set of attributes that would be labeled for

this product likely to need revision soon because

of rapid change in product technology?

B. Is the product itself becoming obsolete?

- 8 -
III. Do consumers need more and/or better information on this

product to make an informed purchase choice? (For this

to be Yes, A, B and C must be Yes and D must be No.)

(Note: consumers' expressions of a desire for

information will only rarely if ever be sufficient to

answer the following questions, but such expressions

usually will give pertinent and important information.)

A. Is there a purchase choice to be made? (For this

to be Yes, either 1 or 2 (or both) must be Yes.)

1. Is there more than one make or model of this

product?

2. Is the consumer faced with a reasonable choice of

whether to buy this product at all? (Alternatives

are to buy a substitute product, to buy equivalent

services or to be without the product or service.)

B. Does the choice matter? (For this to be Yes, 1 or 2

or 3 (or any combination) must be Yes.)

1. Could a lack of information lead to the choice

of a make or model that is unsafe for the intended

application?

2. Could non-negligible costs be incurred through

an uninformed choice? (Examples: (a) lost

purchase money where the product must be scrapped

because it is unsatisfactory; (b) unnecessarily

high operating or repair expenses; (c) damage the

product causes to other things.)

3. Could an uninformed choice cause undue inconvenience or discomfort? (Examples: (a) unreliability;

(b) excessive demands on user's time; (c) failure

to fully perform the function needed or wanted

by the consumer.)

C. Is objective information about the product necessary

for an informed choice? (This rules out, for

example, products that are chosen entirely, or

almost entirely, on the basis of fashion or personal

taste.

)

D. Is adequate information already available and will

it probably continue to be available? (For this to

be Yes, 1 or 2 (or both) must be Yes. Note that

the information available must satisfy all of the

criteria for adequate information.)

-9-
1 . By inspecting the product (including any labels)

at the point of sale can most shoppers get

adequate information for an informed purchase

choice?

2. Can most consumers get adequate information by

buying (or leasing) the product and using it?

(For this to be Yes, all of the following

must be Yes.

)

a. Does personal use of the product give

adequate information?

b. Is it safe to learn by trial and error?

c. Is trial and error an efficient learning

strategy? Is the variety of makes and

models small enough, and is the product

bought frequently enough, that a consumer

can readily come to a conclusion about a

purchase choice and then apply that in

subsequent purchases?

d. Is the cost of learning by trial and error

reasonable? (Consider price, operating cost,

damage to other products, etc.)

e. Is the inconvenience and discomfort of

learning by trial and error within reasonable

bounds?

IV. Given a need for more and/or better information, is an

informative label an appropriate medium through which

to make the information available? (For this to be Yes,

A must be No and B must be Yes.)

A. Can simple changes be made (e.g., in product

packaging) so adequate information will be available

from inspection of the product at the point of sale

or from experience with the product, and will these

changes probably be made?

B. Do any of the attributes to be labeled require

comparative information rather than a quality

certification? (For this to be Yes, either 1 or

2 must be Yes for at least one attribute.)

- 10 -
1 . Do consumers need point-of-sale information

showing how makes or models differ in performance

or quality levels? (For this to be Yes, both

a and b must be Yes.)

a. Does (or will) a range of performance or

quality levels exist in the attribute (s )

?

b. Can information on that range help consumers

make an informed purchase choice? (For

example, do different consumers (or does the

same consumer for a variety of purposes)

need or want different performance or quality

levels?)

2.

Do consumers need point-of-sale information

showing how makes or models are similar in

performance or quality levels? Do some makes

or models, with similar performance or quality

levels, have substantially different prices

(price differentials resulting from specious

product differentiation)?

V. Is an informative label feasible? (For this to be Yes,

A, B, C and D must all be Yes.)

A. Is an informative label technologically feasible?

(For this to be Yes, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 must all be

Yes. )

1. Do suitable test methods exist, or can they

reasonably be developed (by industry, government

or others)

?

2. Does industry have, or can it reasonably develop,

the technical capability for its role in CPILP

(testing the product and providing the information

in the label)?

3. Does NBS have, or can it reasonably develop or

obtain elsewhere, the technical capability for

the government role in CPILP (determining the

attributes to be labeled, identifying

appropriate test methods, and developing a prototype label)?

4. Are product units that are produced at different

times consistent in performance (or will they

probably be made consistent in the near future)?

- 11 -
5. Are product units that are produced in different

facilities consistent in performance (or will

they probably be made consistent in the near

future)

?

Is an informative label institutionally feasible?

(For this to be Yes, 1 and 2 must be Yes, and 3 and

4 must be No.

)

1. Will the cooperation of the industry and business

probably be sufficient to assure the use of label:

for this product? (The idea behind this question

is that it would be wasteful to undertake a

labeling project that would fail to achieve a public benefit, due to lack of participation

by producers and/or private brand labelers.

In some cases an answer to this question will

be highly judgmental since it refers to future

events. Expression of industry's interest or

intent (whether favorable or unfavorable to

CPILP) provides evidence bearing on this

question. No firm rule can now be given as

to the number or percentage of the market that

will be sufficient. Even a large number of

participants may be insufficient if it entails

an unreasonably long period of time or great

difficulties. On the other hand, participation

by one or two major producers could justify

proceeding with a labeling project in the

belief that their competitors will follow their

lead. It is even conceivable that labeling by

a single major producer would afford the consumer

a substantial benefit in the form of performance

information useful in making a purchase decision,

even though comparative information was not

available from competitors. Another factor

that can influence the answer to this question

is the degree to which consumers need the

information that could be provided by a CPILP

label .

)

2. Would labeling of this product foster a public

perception of CPILP as a useful program? (For

this to be Yes, a and b must be Yes, and c must be No.

)

a. Will the product be perceived by consumers

as important enough to label? (For this to

be Yes, the product must not be frivolous and

it must not be a trivial product, either

in the sense that the purchase choice has

no real consequence for the consumer or

- 12 -
in the sense that the product is bought

only by a very small segment of the public.)

b. Will the information on the label be

perceived by consumers as adding significantly to their ability to make an

informed purchase choice?

c. Is it reasonably anticipated that the label

could become the subject of public or

political controversy?

3. Is performance labeling of this product within

the jurisdiction of another agency? (It is

possible that an agency has jurisdiction over

certain limited aspects of performance labeling

but not other aspects , in which case a CPILP

label covering these other aspects could be

appropriate. It is possible that by interagency

agreement a CPILP label could incorporate

information within the jurisdiction of

separate agencies. If it is believed that

another agency is considering labeling the

performance of this product, or would consider

performance labeling to be in its jurisdiction,

some investigation will be required before this

question can be answered. It may be helpful

to obtain a letter of understanding to delineate

the jurisdiction over this product for purposes

of labeling as envisioned in CPILP.)

4. Do the staff and budget required to plan and

execute the labeling effort clearly exceed

available resources?

C. Is the label design feasible? Considering compromises necessitated by test methods or other factors,

can a label be designed to provide information

needed by consumers and to fulfill the criteria for

adequate information (except criterion i)

?

D. Is a CPILP label for this product economically

feasible? (For this to be Yes, 1 must be No and

2 (if applicable) must be Yes. )

1. Are the costs of labeling this product clearly

excessive in relation to the benefits? (Consider the costs and benefits identified in the

box in the lower right corner of the chart in

section 4.2. Note that the costs to government,

while passed through to the general public, are

- 13 -
not passed through specifically to the producer

and consumer of a particular product.)

2. If an inflationary impact statement is required,

. is the impact shown to be within limits of

acceptability?

4 . 2 CPILP Product Selection Chart

The criteria outlined in section 4.1 explicitly

identify the judgments that are necessary to determine

whether a product is appropriate for labeling. Wherever

judgments are called for, people may differ in their answers,

but these detailed criteria help to identify exactly what

the points of any disagreement are, so any discussion of them

can be to the point and productive.

That entire set of criteria is condensed to a single

chart, shown in figure 1. For convenience in abbreviating,

the criteria are stated in declarative form rather than

interrogative. The chart is arranged to force a yes/no

decision at each point, as indicated by the arrows connecting

the boxes. All of the arrows entering a box must be "satisfied

in order for the statement in that box to be true. An arrow

is satisfied if the truth-value of the statement it leads

from corresponds to the label on the arrow ("YES" for a true

statement, "NO" for false). Where it is sufficient that

any one of two or more conditions be fulfilled, this is

indicated by yes/no arrows that join into a single arrow

labeled "OR" entering the next box.

Number signs (#) in the chart indicate criteria relating

to benefits of CPILP label. Asterisks (*) indicate criteria

relating to costs that could be incurred, e.g., the cost of

developing test methods. Other factors entering into a costbenefit judgment are listed in the lower-right portion of the

chart.

In the upper-right area, the criteria for adequate

information are reproduced in. their entirety since the concept

of adequate information is the key concept for the use of the

chart.

4 . 3 Use of the Chart

After once reading section 4.1, the user can be expected

to rely mainly on the chart presented in section 4.2, bearing

in mind that the chart is only a condensation of the criteria.

- 14 -

The chart is designed to be used as a worksheet; the

user can record his findings for a given product directly

on a copy of the chart. A convenient notation is to circle

the label on an arrow if it is confirmed, to cross it out

if it is disconf irmed , and to enclose it in parenthesis if

it is accepted pending further investigation.

It is evident that reading the chart from left to right

leads from the most general criteria to detailed criteria

designed to help the user in assessing a product. The

details should, of course, be understood in the context of

the larger criteria from which they derive. Along each branch

of the chart the user needs only to go into as much detail

as he finds necessary.

Reading from top to bottom indicates the usual sequence

of the decisions to be made. However, the user can be

flexible in both the horizontal and the vertical sequences.

If, for example, he knows or suspects that a particular

criterion will disqualify the product, he can begin with that

criterion.

The use of the chart as a worksheet makes evident the

judgments that are left in some doubt, questions still

unanswered, places where some investigation is needed into

the product or its consumers or producers, and topics on

which more fundamental research is needed.

To be able to use the chart to assess a particular product,

the user must have some general concept of the attributes to

be included on its label. Thinking through the detailed

criteria in the chart is likely to suggest other attributes

for inclusion or to suggest that some should be dropped.

Therefore, the user is advised to keep notes on such thoughts

as he proceeds through the chart.

A product can be assessed for its appropriateness for

labeling within a particular time frame, as during the

initiation phase of CPILP when products should be selected

that can be labeled in ^ relatively short time. The chart

can be used with a "mental overlay" of such a time frame.

The time frame applies especially to the five parts of the

technological feasibility determination, where a capability

either exists or will have to be developed. It also applies

especially to the four parts of institutional feasibility;

the matters involving cooperation of industry, jurisdiction

of other agencies, and staff and budget availability could

extend the time required to realize the labels for a particular

product, and the public perception of the labeling program

could be delayed by the lag between the manufacture of the

product and its appearance on retail shelves.

- 16 -
Since the purpose of the criteria for appropriateness

(represented by the chart) is to screen out candidate products

that are clearly not appropriate for CPILP labeling, leaving

a set of appropriate products that are subject to prioritization,

it is better to err on the side of inclusiveness than to

exclude doubtful products. Hence, the entire chart should

be applied in that frame of mind. In particular, the

wording is biased toward inclusiveness in criteria III. B. 1-3,

V.B.4 and V.D.l.

Since "adequate information" is the key concept for

CPILP labeling, some further comments are offered here on

its role in the application of detailed criteria. Criterion III.C

asks whether objective information is needed in a purchase

choice, since a CPILP label will only convey objective

information. The consumer chooses many, perhaps most,

products by a mixture of objective and subjective considerations.

The fact that subjective considerations are involved does not

make a product inappropriate for CPILP. If adequate information

for an informed choice is entirely subjective (as it may be

for a work of art)

,

then the product is inappropriate (has no

need for a CPILP label) . But if adequate information for an

informed choice requires some objective information (and

the other criteria for appropriateness are satisfied) , the

product is appropriate for labeling.

Criterion III.D asks whether adequate information is

already available, because if it is, no CPILP label is needed.

Adequate information for a particular product may include many

items of information, and these may be obtained by the consumer

from several sources in combination. Although some items may

already be available to the consumer, if other items are not,

a CPILP label may be appropriate for those items. Those items,

of course, are still subject to Criterion IV, concerning the

appropriateness of informative labeling, and Criterion V,

concerning feasibility.

In particular, Criterion V.C tests whether the label

design, as it may have evolved through the application of

earlier criteria, is still feasible. A CPILP label will,

of course, be designed (as a supplement to other sources of

information) to convey adequate information. However,

compromises forced by technological or institutional factors

could make an adequate label design infeasible, as could

the opposed requirements of comprehensiveness and simplicity

expressed in items a and h among the criteria for adequate

information.

- 17 -
The final judgment of whether a CPILP label is appropriate

rests not on whether it can provide completely adequate

information (either alone or in combination with other

information sources) , but rather on whether its contribution

to adequate information is worthwhile in view of the resources

that would be required for its realization. This final

judgment is represented in Criterion V.D.

Since the chart represents many judgments that depend on

the user's knowledge about the product and other factors, there

are several ways in which the chart can be used, representing

different levels of the user's knowledge. Hence the use of

the chart is an iterative process. First, the chart can be

used for a very preliminary screening of any product recommended for labeling. This initial screening may uncover any

immediate and obvious impediments to CPILP labeling. Examples

might be that it is not primarily a consumer product, the

label might soon become obsolete, or the product is in the

jurisdiction of another agency. Following an initial screening

without impediments, the user can further prepare a product

investigation; an example is given in the next chapter. The

selection decisions can then be reiterated with greater

depth and assurance than before. Finally, since the user's

concept of the label may evolve during his use of the chart,

and since at some stage the user may also obtain inputs from

consumers or technical experts on label design, attribute

selection and other aspects of product performance, he may

wish to apply the chart again.

5 . EXAMPLE

As an illustration of the way in which the CPILP Product

Selection Chart functions, an example using electric irons

as a proposed product is given in this chapter. Figure 2

is a CPILP Product Selection Chart which records the criteria

decisions on whether irons are an appropriate product for

labeling under CPILP. The answer notations on the chart

identify whether each criterion was satisfied, based on the

product information contained in figure 3, a document by

Bernard McGuire which summarizes the pertinent information

that was readily available for irons.

In reviewing figure 2, it can be seen by the circles at

the left that the first four of the five major criteria were

satisfied. This confirms that irons are a consumer product,

the label would not soon become obsolete, a need does exist

for the information, and informative labeling is an appropriate

medium for presentation of the consumer information. The

fifth major question, concerning label feasibility is

answered "maybe," shown by parentheses. This "maybe"

- 18 -
LuHorunly if.fc-rcirO primarily for f*x»H.riS,

rrattrO or di.intyi^ fal ,.). ,„ . C ai.,«, r for ,ht u~. mn.nyi ,«, or of

al or InUistnal i a

»Uil« to be laieled is likely to r*ed i rinar uni, « »,, Am to rapid ch«r\g« U product t«ctoHosy

j

There 11 wore th^ii a.e~ittle or rairi 1

' Ihere 1 $ an alternative predict or service I

L*ck °* Lnfor*->t |L^ could lead to choice of product imafe for intended application *]

UuafowrJ choice could entail sigiificant costs ] £

<Tff 1 Uiiniomed choice could causa lasdue inconvenience or disct^fort ~[ ff

i —k/

»

AJequate Zjf"

inforaaticn qq ^ is already a—xJUf:

available ^ *

inspection of the product, including

any labels, at the point of sale

ran experience with the product

Si^la change* e.g.. in product packaging)

can and probable will be ead* so adequate Ulforaanon rill t* .v»il»t>le fna

^*P*ction or experience

- label is There are attributes to be labeled appropriate ardiia uat require ccrrarativr information l rather than «uj*I: tv certification

xaminj; bv trial anJ error i* ar. eftuicnt

»

•

‘ od of o-taininy adequate iiifornr ion

Tl-c cost of attaining a-U^.ute information

b> trial ard error is reasonable

Fhyjfm pLrAursj

rhr inconvenience ard discomfort of obtaining aue^ute mi creation by trial and error is reason^le

Cmsixer needs ::.fcrra» ion shoeing

i*»* aa*es or odccIs differ

in performance cr qualitv let-vis

There is lor will be i a rar.ge of perfereanca

or quality levels in the attributed)

The informal ion on that range can help can sixer * axcr an informed choice

Camter .needs _-.forrjt:an showing how cases or ncvirls ire -tr.-lar m performance cr qualirv level*

baae Mies or models, thes-gh similar m perfomsnre nr qualitv lewis,

ha\e suHtant lally different prices

Suitable tot act bods can be developed |». 114777713

technical capability lor industry role (testing, etc.) c lists in livhj-try

j

lcvhntc.il cJiMbility for itvbistrv rrle c.vi he developed J*

rovhni»al capability for p'vcmanl role rusts in \RS 1 lUolc incl.w!e> (1) ik-tcnsmmg attributes to be labeled

nclud*** skills, equifwnt. facilities)

. ' iJent if* mg tr„t eethnds. fj) dcsrlertrg protowpe label)

- V J*

l<\lmu jI i ipil*iiitv fin ^scriwenl role cjh K- nit a mo! !r w another riginiutlcn

i’livluvt units probwed at Jilicrcnt tines arc . .»-.<is»cn* i

• nrrlrro-ir.c ]

pi .vl , ,^l ,|t .1.1 1 l‘ r ‘ in

.ET, f

. 3»

hw l unit* pi.vl.w rd in dll I

{ 1 1 C'K l units pu\bfc\J in Jif It-nx : .jcilitic^ v ulJ and r> w 11 !e M.lr fi«i*istfn t in performance J*

1

4 i'p- r.it I'ti of i>hi<tn irvi lsx«inrs* pnfial>!» will k1 sufficient to as«urc n r «** the lahr 1 * f.'f this f-vriort j

S i my; thi* p i \ fix I wcsilJ foster j piMu tWvv-pTi.ei et CJH-P as , egry ]

liK '.inc rf ihii prexh:. • is in the - irisdii i n of another

St .it t -ltw.1 budget nvimd to plan ard nrcutr ine 'listing riloit cU-ulv cvvwJ av.nl.iHc rv >rw r\ r

Label design 1-ihel van be vk-*i Knevl to r ro\i Je the needed Inforaut icei, is feasible liilttlling criteria for feWfute miorsut ion .r*vept i)

*»f libel”* this pnvJiwt relation to benefit*

N|iurTNl, is x.i » j-t «hlc

Fig. 2 - Sample Worksheet for Electric Irons
VOLUNTARY CONSUMER PRODUCT INFORMATION LABELING PROGRAM

PRELIMINARY PRODUCT INVESTIGATION

ELECTRIC IRONS

Electric Iron Types £ o dry iron f o steam iron and steam booster iron

o spray iron

o steam spray iron

Typical Special Features

o work light

O water gage or "visible" tank

o indicator that soleplate temperature corresponds to

temperature control setting

o nonstick soleplate coating (tef Ion , etc.

)

o fabric chart or coded temperature control

o self-clean system

Measurable Performance Characteristics

o temperature "overshoot" on initial heatup

o soleplate temperature distribution

o heatup and cooldown time

o normal cyclic variation in soleplate temperature

o accuracy of temperature control

o steam rate and steam pattern

b spray rate and spray pattern

o tank capacity (or spray/steam duration)

o weight/balance

o stability at rest

o impact resistance

o electrical power requirement

o electrical safety

o thermal safety o test methods already exist for most of the above performance

characteristics and can easily be developed for the remainder

Fig. 3 - Information on Electric Irons

- 20 -
(

Typical Problems

o inaccurate temperature control can cause damage to fabrics

o boil-over of excess steam or poor handle design can cause

burns to user O uneven temperature distribution, poor spray or steam

pattern, or buildup of starch or other material on soleplate,

can make ironing difficult

o breakage when dropped or buildup of deposits in steam

system can result ,in financial loss

Relevant Standards o AHAM No. 1-1 , Household Electric Irons, October 1974. o UL 1005, Electric Flat Irons, February 1977. o I EC 311, Methods of Measurement of Performance of Electric

Irons for Household or Similar Use, 1970. o Some portions of CEE 10 may apply but were not available

in the Standards Library.

Cognizant Trade Associations/Certification Programs

o Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

o No certification program

t Some Reasons for Labeling

o It is feasible to standardize the temperature control

markings/teminology and the related soleplate temperatures,

but this has not been done in the U.S. It has been done

in Europe.

. o Inaccurate or misleading control markings can result in

damage to fabrics, or in less severe cases, buildup of

burnt starch and other material on the soleplate. This

buildup can cause sticking. Aluminum soleplates are most

susceptible to buildup and scratching and chrome soleplates

are less susceptible. Soleplates coated with teflon or similar materials are least susceptible to buildup, but

vulnerable to scratching.

O' Some irons have small water tanks that require frequent

refilling. Also, some irons have inadequate steam rates

or patterns. ^

Fig. 3 - Information on Electric Irons (continued)

- 21 -
Electric Iron Market

L{units

$'hi pped

1975

dbllar

value

1975

units

shipped

1976

units

shipped

1977*

Dry Irons 600 000 7 800 000

Travel Irons 197 000 2 364 000

Steam/Spray

Irons

7 086 000 177 150 000

Total 7 883 000 187 314 000 8 230 000 8 600 000

* projection

Note: Data from Merchandising (March 1976) and Appliance

(January 1977).

Literature at Hand o Buying Guide Tag Pilot Program Report, Federated Department

Stores, Inc., 1970. o Which?, April 1975, p. 110-112.

o Consumer Reports, March 1974, p. 194-199. o Consumer Bulletin, February 1966, p 6-10.

o Consumer's Research Magazine, February 1974, p 15-18.

o Good Housekeeping, October 1974, p. 154.

O Popular Mechanics, August 1974, p. 82-85.

Fig. 3 - Information on Electric Irons Ccontinued)

B. McGuire

June 16, 1977

- 22 -
results from other of the same notations found in the

detailed criteria under technological feasibility and label

design feasibility. The overall result of this determination

is that irons are accepted as an appropriate product for

labeling under CPILP, pending confirmation of some assumptions

about feasibility. The outstanding "maybe" notations highlight those areas that would need further investigation.

Looking at the detail regarding whether this product is

a consumer product (at the top of the chart) , we see two

parts to the question. The first asks whether the product

is produced for sale to a consumer, etc., and it has been

answered Yes, confirming the label on its arrow as indicated

by the circle. The second part (intended for business, etc.)

has been answered No, and this answer satisfies its arrow.

Since both of these arrows are satisfied, the product is

determined to be a consumer product.

The next line of the chart asks whether the label would

soon become obsolete. A sufficient condition for this to

be true is a Yes answer to either of its parts, as indicated

by the "yes-or-yes" arrow. But since neither part could be

answered Yes, the arrow entering the box "Label would soon

become obsolete" is not satisfied. Hence that box is not

true, and that satisfies the No arrow leading from that box.

Skipping down to the box marked "Adequate information

is already available" we see that this criterion will be met

if adequate information is available from inspection or

experience (or both) . (Note that if these two sources in

combination provide adequate information, the box to their

left would be satisfied, and this could be indicated by

circling both YES labels together or the OR.) But since in

this case the information is not available from inspection,

as shown by crossing out the YES leading from it, we must

ask whether it is available from experience. For that to

be confirmed, we will have to show that all five of its parts

are satisfied. However, since one of them is disconf irmed

,

"From experience with the product" is disconfirmed also. This

together with the determination for inspection falsifies

"Adequate information is already available" and that satisfies

the NO arrow leading from it.

The rest of the worksheet is completed in similar fashion

- 23 -
6. INFORMATION SOURCES FOR PRODUCT SELECTION

To apply the criteria to determine the appropriateness

of a product for labeling requires information about the

product and about the consumer. This chapter is a guide to

information sources on product attributes and performance

(sec. 6.1), economic data on products (sec. 6.2), measures of

consumer attitudes (sec. 6.3) and models of buyer behavior

(sec. 6.4).

6 . 1 Product Attributes and Performance

It is apparent as a result of the product selection

research project that products being evaluated for CPILP

must be considered in light of their performance attributes.

These are the salient attributes from which a product specific

CPILP label would be constituted. Several aspects of the

selection criteria, including technical feasibility, existence

of standard test methods, etc., are based on attributes,

features, characteristics, uses and problems of each product

being evaluated. The selection process requires in good

measure, detailed information on product attributes and

performance.

It is therefore important to know what sources may be

available to identify the key features and salient attributes

associated with any candidate product for CPILP. The following

is a brief narrative that directs the user to several sources

of information that can be useful in product selection.

6.1.1 Comparative Testing Journals

One source of detailed information pertaining to product

attributes and performance are the comparative testing

journals. Best known of these are Consumer Reports [2]

(published by Consumers Union) and Consumers' Research

Magazine [3] (published by Consumers' Research, Inc.).

Other related sources, with somewhat less applicability to

the U.S. market, are Canadian Consumer [4] and WHICH? [5]

(Great Britain)

.

Articles in these comparative testing journals characteristically include performance information reported for key

product attributes. In addition, specific features, defects

and faults, consumer use and misuse guidelines and other

aspects of the product are detailed. Such articles can be

a good first reference in addition to other sources of

information and CPILP staff analyses. Of course, such

preliminary information is only a guide to identify key

product attributes and features for CPILP product selection.

Of those products subsequently chosen for CPILP labeling,

-24-
detailed studies are necessary to confirm the attributes

to be labeled and the actual label format.

Both Consumer Reports and Consumers 1 Research Magazine

include an annual or semi-annual subject (product) index.

An additional feature of each magazine is an annual handbook

or buyer's guide, which also contains a subject index. The

material contained in these two periodicals can also be obtained

through a more comprehensive index to sources of product

information, namely. Consumers Index [6]

.

6.1.2 Consumers Index

Consumers Index to Product Evaluations and Information

Sources is a quarterly publication, with an annual compendium,

that indexes consumer product information and services by

subject classification. Approximately 110 periodicals,

including the major English language comparative testing

journals are regularly reviewed and indexed. The Product

Systems Analysis Division presently has on hand the 1973,

1974 and 1975 Annuals. Among the major subject headings are

Consumerism, Health and Personal Care, Clothing, the Home,

Sports-Recreation-Hobbies, Sight and Sound, Transportation,

and others.

6.1.3 Consumer Review

The International Organization of Consumers Unions —IOCU

(Netherlands) —publishes a quarterly periodical entitled

Consumer Review [7]

.

This is the official publication

based on the collected efforts of the major consumers'

organizations around the world. The subject and product

information in Consumer Review is organized under the major

headings of

:

- Technical Developments (Standardization and Test Methods)

- Legislation

- Education

- Consumer Organizations' Publications (Subject Index)

- Bibliographies

- Translations

- Index

Each 4th quarter issue contains an annual alphabetical

index by subject and product, which can be used to search

product information for any of the above subject headings.

Recent year copies of Consumer Review are available in the

Division.

- 25 -
6.1.4 Product Information File

Consumers Index has been utilized, in conjunction with

earlier efforts, to initiate a Product Information File in

the Product Systems Analysis Division. The file consists of

copies of articles pertaining to individual products, mostly

appliance products. For these products, selected articles

were collected by reviewing the respective subject over the

last three years of Consumers Index . The file presently includes approximately sixty products,

with from one to as many as six articles per product. The

Product Information File has proven very useful, e.g., in

consideration of CPILP labels for irons and vacuum cleaners.

Appendix A lists the individual products presently contained

in the information file.

6.1.5 Product Standards

The existence of any of the various forms of standards

can provide considerable insight into product attributes,

possible test methods for CPILP, performance specifications

and the like. This information is also useful when working

through the set of criteria for product selection. There

are several NBS special publications related to standards,

which list many of the voluntary trade and professional

organization, state, national and international standards

for products including consumer products. The most appropriate

of these references are:

- Slattery, Tabulation of Voluntary Standards and

Certification Programs for Consumer Products , NBS TN-948 (1977) . Revision of Chumas 1 NBS TN-762 (1973). [8]

- Grossnickle, ed. , An Index of State Specifications

and Standards . NBS SP-375 (1973) . [9]

- Chumas, ed. , Directory of United States Standardization

Activities , NBS SP-417 (1975) . [10]

- Chumas, ed. , Index of International Standards , NBS SP-390 (1974) . [11]

- Slattery, An Index of U.S. Voluntary Engineering

Standards , NBS SP-329 (1971); Supplement 1 (1972)

;

Supplement 2 (1975) . [12]

The NBS Standards Application and Analysis Division, and

its Standards Library, can be a source of additional assistance

and provide copies of specific standards as required.

- 26 -
6.1.6 Trade and Professional Associations

NBS SP-417 [10] referred to above includes reference to

many trade and professional associations that are known to

have active standardization activities. In addition, although

not known for their standardization work, there are numerous

other associations which can be a very valuable source of

product information. There are two comprehensive guides to

the available associations, and both include a comprehensive

subject index. These annual guides are:

- Fisk, ed. , Encyclopedia of Associations [13] , and

- Colgate, ed. , National Trade and Professional Associations

of the United States and Canada and Labor Unions [14]

.

6.1.7 Safety Information

Specific safety related information may, at times, be

desired to assist in CPILP product selection. One measure of

the potential hazards associated with consumer products is

based on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS)

.

An additional source of product related safety information could be Accident Facts [15] , or more specifically its

publisher, the National Safety Council.

6.2 Economic Data on Products

In addition to knowledge about the attributes and

performance of product candidates for CPILP labeling, it is

also important to obtain an economic profile of those

products. Such data are needed for the selection criteria

to help assess the economic importance of the product. The

economic data sources are of two kinds. One source is of

a general systems nature that can be used to retrieve

information on numerous different consumer products. Examples

would be the reports put out by the Bureau of the Census.

In contrast, other sources of a more product-specific nature

are also available, such as trade journals.

6.2.1 U.S. Government Data and Information Sources

There are several Federal Government sources of

information on products and related industries that can be

valuable in obtaining economic data for needed CPILP

analyses. CPILP product selection is enhanced when such

product or industry economic profile data are available.

One agency that provides detailed information on selected

products and industries is the Department of Commerce. A

- 27 -
major reference is the yearly survey entitled Current

Industrial Reports (CIR) [16] , from the Bureau of the Census.

The CIR reports on products or associated groups of products

classed by their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

or Product Code. The CIRs cover over 5,000 products representing 40% of all manufacturing in the United States.

Selected broad categories covering some consumer products

include

:

- machinery and equipment

- stone, clay and glass products

- chemicals, rubber and plastics

- lumber, furniture and paper products

- apparel and leather

- textile mill products

Normally included in the CIR are figures for value of

shipments ($)

,

number of units shipped, number of companies

responding, and export data. Appendix B provides a listing

of those CIRs currently available. Appendix C is a selected product CIR on Major Household Appliances as an

illustration of the type of information generally contained

therein.

Periodically, the Bureau of the Census does a national

Survey of Manufactures , the last having been reported in 1972

[17] . It provides more detailed and comprehensive coverage

than the annual CIRs. Available from the 1972 survey are

440 reports covering 450 industries or combinations of

industries. The most pertinent of these is the collection

of eighty-one Industry Series Final Reports. Each of the

reports provides information for a group of related industries

Final figures for the United States are shown for each of the

450 manufacturing industries on quantity and value of products

shipped and quantity and cost of materials consumed, cost of

fuels and electric energy, capital expenditures, assets, rents

inventories, employment, payrolls, payroll supplements, manhours, value added by manufacturing, number of establishments,

and number of companies. Also shown are selected operating

ratios such as payroll per employee and cost of materials

per dollar of shipments. Comparable statistics for earlier

years are provided for each industry. Data on value of

shipments, value added by manufacturing, capital expenditures,

employment, and payrolls are shown by geographic region and

State, employment-size class of establishment, and by degree

of industry specialization.

The Department of Commerce also publishes, through its

Domestic and International Business Administration (DIBA) , an

annual U.S. Industrial Outlook [18] . These also provide

economic projections for eight years hence. Some general

-28-
industry headings of interest to CPILP are Consumer Goods;

Communications; Chemicals; and Rubber and Allied Products.

Within each major area, the U.S. Industrial Outlook contains

detailed analyses of individual industries, pertinent statistics,

legislative developments, new products and technology. The

Bureau of Domestic Commerce, within DIBA, and the Bureau of

Economic Analysis can be potential sources of business and

industry economic data. Outside of the Commerce Department,

the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be another source of

useful data through its Consumer Expenditure Survey [19]

.

There are numerous government publications that can

provide preliminary information on selected consumer products.

These publications are often prepared for the general public

from the resources and expertise contained within the government.

One example is the Consumer Information Series (CIS) , which

comprises publications about several consumer products.

Different sets of CIS publications are available both from

the National Bureau of Standards and the General Services

Administration. Specific bibliographies to consumer publications

offered through the Government Printing Office (GPO) are

available from its "Consumer Guide to Federal Publications."

A periodically revised list of consumer interest publications,

"The Consumer Information Catalog," appears quarterly from

the GSA's Consumer Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado.

However, this listing is neither cumulative nor comprehensive

in coverage, and carries a maximum of about 250 publications

at any one time.

6.2.2 Predicasts Information Retrieval System

Predicasts, Inc. is a computer-based information retrieval

system in conjunction with Lockheed's Information Systems

Division. There are several files in the Predicast system

including statistical, index, abstract and data bases. The

statistical file, for example, contains historical and forecast

data from numerous U.S. and international sources including

census, FTC, IMF, OECD, etc. The data are collected by

products, markets, services, regulations, industries, companies,

capacities, end-users and the like. The National Bureau of

Standards Library can provide computerized access to certain

of the Predicasts System files. There are search fees applicable

to each use. The output from Predicasts is available both as

direct computer printout and in hard copy volumes.

In addition to the Predicasts System there are other

computerized search systems of a related nature, such as

Inform, Management and others. In contrast to Predicasts

these latter systems provide bibliographic citations only,

rather than the direct data output also available via the

former.

- 29 -
'

j

6.2.3 Appliance and Other Product Survey Data

Due to the important position that home appliances hold

in the home and to the consumer, there are several readily

available sources of related economic information on these

classes of products. This survey information is separate

from that available through the Census CIR data described

above. Merchandising magazine publishes an annual Statistical

Issue and Marketing Report [20] . This study includes prior

ten-year figures on number shipped (units) and retail value

($) for approximately forty-five consumer appliances. Also,

included are saturation indices, replacement and tradein data, imports and exports, and regional sales patterns.

Appliance magazine offers an annual Statistical Review [21]

.

Appliance data occasionally appear in the monthly HFD Databank

[22]

. This Databank can also be a useful source of economic

data on all retail home furnishings including furniture,

upholstery, floor coverings, domestic textiles, etc.

A recent reference book on Business Information Sources

[23] can be a very helpful guide to locating other sources

of industry and product information. Selected chapters include

- directories of companies and organizations

- basic U.S. statistical sources

- industry statistics

- U.S. business and economic trends.

6.2.4 Consumer Complaint Data

Consumers' complaints about products can be one useful

criterion to indicate need for information under CPILP. One

means of obtaining such data on specific products is through

the reports of the consumer action panels that have begun in

recent years. First and preeminent among these is the Major

Appliance Consumer Action Panel (MACAP) , sponsored by the

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) . An annual

MACAP Statistical Report [24] summarizes their consumer

complaints and resolutions by product type and complaint

type, including performance and service. Other related

efforts have been considered by other action panels for

motor vehicles, and carpets and rugs.

Several Federal, State and local government departments

can be a potential source of consumer complaint data. To

date, however, there is no coordinated Federal effort to

monitor ongoing consumer complaint information on a national

basis.

- 30 -
6 . 3 Aggregate Consumer Attitudes

The following delineates the consumer movement trend in

the U.S. over the last few years including a study of

businessmen's attitudes in 1971 compared to businessmen's

attitudes in 1962, consumer attitudes tracked from 1971 to

1975, business response to consumer complaints, and attitudes

of various concerned groups towards consumer movement as of

1977, besides specific surveys or complaints, and two economic

indices.

Probably the most comprehensive survey of various groups'

attitudes toward the consumer movement, commissioned by

Sentry Insurance and titled "Consumerism at the Crossroads"

[25]

,

measured the attitudes of businessmen and consumers in

addition to the attitudes of consumer activists and public

regulators. Conducted by Harris with Marketing Science

Institute, they interviewed 2,000 people in 1976 in a

survey designed to meet two objectives:

1) How is the consumer movement now viewed?

2) What insights are there into the future direction

of the consumer movement?

The major areas explored by the survey were:

1) The standards, practices and motivations of

American business with respect to consumerism.

2) The rate and effectiveness of government regulation

of consumer matters.

3) The handling of consumer complaints by business.

4) Expectations for future development of consumer

affairs

.

5) The extent to which different leadership groups

are seen as speaking for the consumer.

6) The effectiveness and role of the consumer

movement and its leaders.

7) The public's source of consumer information and

their attitudes toward such sources.

8) The expectations for the future of the consumer

movement, regulation and the handling of consumer

problems

.

- 31 -
One of the general conclusions was that "helping consumers

get a fair deal when shopping" has a top priority, ahead of a National Energy Policy, controlling air and water pollution,

National Health Insurance and others. It ranks second only to

other issues relating to the economy. Other conclusions were:

© 83% of the public is concerned about misleading

packaging or labeling;

© 81% of the public is concerned about the absence of

reliable information about different products and

services

;

® 59% of the public is concerned about the difficulty

of choosing between so many products.

All of these findings support the need for CPILP.

In 1971 and 1972 Louis Harris and Associates studied consu

attitudes toward the consumer movement, toward regulation of

consumer goods industries, toward advertising and the quality

of consumer products. About 1600 persons, a national cross

section of adults 18 and older, were interviewed for each

study. Essentially, "Consumerism at the Crossroads" confirms

their earlier findings. One overall conclusion was that

consumers found more fault with products and services in 1972

than they did in 1971. We were not able to acquire the actual

reports; however, the study was reported in the newspapers and

in proceedings of a conference.

Information on Study #2120 Consumerism I is available from:

Revett, John, "Consumers Endorse More Restrictions on

Business: Harris," Advertising Age, (n.p.) (25 October

1971)

.

Dorny, Lester R. , "How Consumers See Business —and the

Consumer Movement," Proceedings of the Advertising

Research Foundation , pp. 5-9 (15 November 1971)

.

Information appeared in a news article on Study #2154

Consumerism II : Dougherty, Philip H. , "Advertising: Angry Consumers,"

The New York Times (n.p.) (20 June 1972).

- 32 -
There was an interesting one-shot attempt at getting

the public's feelings on the subject in 1972. in this case, the results supported the conclusions of later, major and

well-controlled studies. The Council of Better Business

Bureaus, Inc. participated in the 1972 National Consumer Week.

They issued a short, check-off questionnaire, the 1972 National

Consumer Referendum [26] distributed by various means, e.g.,

as telephone bill inserts and at various places of business

throughout the U.S. Sixty-eight thousand consumers responded. Although this method of sampling is the least desirable and

encourages questions about the validity of the results, the

major findings are listed below:

A. Ranking of current "annoying" business practices:

No. 1. Products that don't perform as represented.

No. 2. Advertising that misleads or claims too much.

B. Ranking of business-sponsored "most helpful"

consumer programs:

No. 1. Owner's manuals on use, care and safety of

appliances

.

No. 2. More informative product labeling.

C. Ranking of types of information consumers want more of

No. 1. What's in a product, how it's made.

No. 2. How to get help when something goes wrong.

D. Finding that 72% of the respondents read a warranty

before purchasing a product.

E. Finding that 67% of respondents ask in advance what

the minimum charge will be when calling an appliance

serviceman.

Given the limitations of this study, there are still

some positive implications for CPILP. The program should

reduce the annoying business practices denoted in A above.

Also, it will support business' continued efforts at informative product labeling (B above)

.

Besides attitudinal data the business community has at

least two economic indices—the Michigan Consumer Sentiment

Survey [27] and the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index

[28]. These surveys indicate the public's confidence in the

future through their intentions to purchase certain durable

goods. - 33 -
The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, conducted

quarterly since 1952, samples 1500 adults aged 18 and above

on their attitudes on the economy by determining consumer

preference for the purchase of certain durable goods. The

University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research is

the parent organization for the Survey Research Center which

conducts the consumer studies. The study, first developed

and organized by George Katona, a pioneer in consumer behavior,

is considered an index of retail sales with a three to six

month lead time.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index is a study

conducted every two months by the National Family Opinion,

Inc. for the Conference Board which surveys more than 10,000

U.S. households. They produce a Consumer Confidence Index

that is akin to the Index of Consumer Sentiment, although

some differences exist.

It would appear that business could be well apprised

of consumer attitudes and consumer buying intentions. However,

the consumer is not getting the information he needs. The

conference discussed next emphasizes the need to give

consumers information and is an example of how engineers came

to that conclusion in 1971.

In April 1971, the National Academy of Engineering

arranged a program in Washington, D.C. on Product Quality,

Performance and Cost of consumer products [29]

.

The objective:

were twofold:

- to look into how to improve production and consumption

decisions by the consumer and

- how to define the engineer's role in this context.

As a result of this symposium 130 recommendations were

consolidated into the following six composite recommendations:

1. on consumer and producer information

2 . on consumer education

3. on engineering education

4. on design

5. on professional societies

6. on safety standards and safeguards.

- 34 -
Their recommendations , as summarized in that report,

give a rationale for and the steps to provide information to

the consumer. It underscores the need to provide information

which allows the consumer to judge the quality of a product

in making a buying decision.

These kinds of reports —major surveys, economic indices,

and conferences—have been selected to stress the consumers'

needs for information in the marketplace. One aspect of

consumer information, advertising, especially has an impact

on both consumers and public policy makers. The following

illustrates some of the controversy surrounding advertising.

Advertising affects businessmen's as well as consumers'

attitudes and pocketbooks. Creyser [30] queried businessmen

and ad-men on their attitudes toward the two perceived roles

of advertising in 1971:

1) its economic role as a tool of business

2) its social role as an institution of society.

Twenty-seven hundred subscribers of Harvard Business Review

(HBR) responded to this study and the results were compared

to results of a similar study of HBR subscribers done in 1962.

Significant changes had occurred in the interim and were

expected to have an impact on the later study:

1) an increased volume of advertising

2) the emergence of a viable consumer movement

3) the evaluation of regulatory patterns.

Generally, the study found that business viewed advertising

more questioningly and less favorably in 1971 than in 1962.

Among the highlights of the results were:

1) Business was more critical of all aspects of the

roles of advertising.

2) Advertising was nonetheless regarded as essential.

3) Advertising speeded the development of new product

market.

4) Business did not like advertising's negative impact,

e.g., persuading people to buy unneeded items.

5) Only one-third of the respondents thought advertising

truly represented the product.

- 35 -
6) Respondents thought advertisers needed a code of

standards

.

7) However, they felt ad improvement rested with top

corporate management.

In contrast, Barksdall, et al [31] in a five-year study

picked up consumer attitudes toward advertising and business.

They surveyed consumers' attitudes toward seven major areas

of consumer concern: advertising, business philosophy,

product quality, consumer responsibilities, government regulation, prices and price control, and other marketing activities

(e.g., personal selling). Three national mail surveys (1971,

1973 and 1975) , which sampled telephone subscribers in the 48

contiguous states, allowed the researchers to note changes and

stability in opinions from 1971-1975. The results generally

suggest that consumers were still discontented with the various

facets of the marketplace; also the authors found their results

corresponded with results of other consumer surveys. Dissatisfaction was not generally related to particular demograph;

characteristics, but some relationship between attitudes and

respondents' sex and occupation occurred in the latter two

surveys. The authors treat consumer dissatisfaction as a

relative concept; i.e., there is always some level of consumer

dissatisfaction

.

Nonetheless consumer dissatisfaction is rarely expressed,

according to Andreason [32]

.

This phenomenon may be related

to lack of information at point of sale, e.g., how to report

complaints to manufacturer. In a spring 1975 survey of

2400 national urban households, he surveyed consumers on

how business responds to consumer complaints. He concludes

that consumer complaints are, if expressed, in few instances

serviced satisfactorily, and he stresses the need for better

communications between business and consumer.

The survey had two objectives:

1) to find the percentage of complaints per number

of purchases of both products and services (20%) and

2) to identify business response to those who complain

(one in four were resolved)

.

Data were compiled on two product categories and on

services

:

1) frequently purchased products, e.g., toys, clothing;

- 36 -
2) infrequently purchased products, e.g., cars, bicycles

air conditioners;

3) consumer services, e.g., car repair, appliance repair

Since the incidence of price complaints was low and

probably reflected changing economic conditions, the incidence

of non-price complaints C20%) was used as an index of industry

performance. The results were:

1) Complaints are more related to expense and frequency

of purchase than to the type of purchases.

2) For more than one-half of the purchases for which

non-price complaints existed, no action was taken.

3) Most of the action taken was to contact the manufacturer or retailer (79%)

.

4) The corporate response rate was poor—only one in

four complaints was satisfactorily resolved.

The authors recommended that business pay more attention

to the dissatisfaction in the marketplace by:

1) Encouraging consumers to complain to business

2) Dealing with complaints received in a timely manner

3) Mandating a positive company attitude towards

complaints—use it in marketing the product.

There have been many surveys of consumer attitudes for

specific purposes, such as complaints about major appliances.

Two recent examples are the annual report of the Major

Appliance Consumer Action Panel (MACAP) [33] and the survey

of the National Home Builders Association [34]

.

MACAP reported on 11,961 complaints and 17 types of

products over the period from January 1968 to December 1975.

Ten percent of the complaints were not satisfactorily disposed

Most complaints were on service (40%) while complaints on

performance ranked second (28%)

.

The National Association of Home Builders in their

first, annual survey reported the opinions of 500 new

homeowners on two subjects.

- 37 -
1. the general performance of their appliances

(92% good to excellent)

2. specific data on buildersupplied appliances:

The survey could provide to the home construction

industry by region and expected cost of the home,

the preference for brand, color, and model of

various appliances.

6 . 4 Buyer Behavior Models

Buyer behavior models, as opposed to aggregate consumer

attitude measurement, explores how and why an individual

consumer makes a buying decision. This once was an aspect

of market research, but it is slowly becoming a separate

discipline. The following identifies some research in

modeling buyer behavior and is a rationale for developing

and using models of buyer behavior to assist in product

selection for CPILP and other consumption policy developments.

The future success of public policy programs like CPILP

will require information on and attention to the needs of

the consumers in the marketplace. Buyer behavior, as a rapidly

maturing discipline which assesses consumer behavior,

is beginning to be used in public policy decisions [35]

affecting consumer and marketing. Jagdish Sheth, a pioneer

in the consumer behavior discipline, predicts that the next

decade will see buyer behavior being adapted for public policy

purposes (among other major developments). Sheth' s recent

book [36] presents several authors who expounded on the

conceptual, qualitative and empirical models of both

comprehensive models of buyer behavior, innovative behavior

and product adoption.

Philip Kotler [37] also sees the benefits of marketing

applied to public policy makers":

"Nonprofit organizations such as . . . government

agencies are seeing marketing as a new way of

looking at their relations with their publics" p.3.

His treatise covers the analyses, planning and control involved

in marketing. The section on Analyzing Marketing Opportunities

emphasizes the need to understand consumer markets and buyer

behavior. He discusses various models of buyer behavior

available to marketers, including:

learning model

psychoanalytic model

sociological model

economic model

hierarchy of needs model.

-38-
Such models allow the marketer to understand the consumer’s

objectives. It is just such objectives that the government

must understand before implementing public policy.

In a seven volume treatment of technology and the consumer

Nicosia and Lancaster [38] examined the meanings of technology,

product variety, consumer power and the organization of the

Federal Government. This study suggested that good public

policy decisions would require, prior to implementing public

policy, a study of cost and benefits to the consumer. The

authors of this lengthy, voluminous study revealed certain

aspects about the interface among technology, product variety,

and consumer

:

• The Federal Government, unlike private firms, is

still oriented toward the country's past need to

industrialize

.

• The consumer is not powerless —he demands quality

as well as quantity.

• Disseminating information about the technological

attributes of products may not be good public policy,

but facilitating interaction between consumers and

private agencies may have a greater pay-off.

Some of the most recent research on buyer (consumer)

behavior is yearly amassed in the Advances In Consumer Research , a report of the annual conference of the Association for Consumer

Research (ACR) . The contributors to ACR's conference range

from academicians to businessmen to public policy administrators.

In his address to the 1977 conference, David M. Gardner,

President of ACR, stated his belief, too, that the government

will use more consumer behavior research although he believes

it won't be a leader in its development [39].

These authors and several others [40-46] have researched

various aspects of consumer behavior which can be used as a starting point in government research. As the government

gets more involved with the marketplace and the consumer,

buyer behavior research is needed. These authors and others

can introduce the public policy maker to its major concepts,

and hopefully lead to more thoughtful public policy decisions.

- 39 -
APPENDIX A

PRODUCT FOLDERS IN THE PRODUCT INFORMATION FILE

Air Conditioners (window)

Appliances (small, housewares.

Bed Coverings

Blenders

Broilers

Candles

Carving Knives (electric)

Can Openers

Cof feemakers

Crockpots

Curling Irons

Dehumidifiers

Dishwashers

Drills

Dryers

Fabrics

Fans

Floor Polishers

Freezers

Frying Pans (electric)

Furniture

Garbage Disposers

Griddles

Grills (outdoor)

Guns

Hair Dryers

Hair Stylers

Heaters

Humidifiers

Irons

misc.) Lanterns

Lawn Mowers

Lighters (cigarette, et

Meat Grinders

Microwave Ovens

Mixers (food, electric)

Motorbikes

Paints

Pressure Cookers

Radios

Ranges

Refrigerators (combinat

Slicing Machines

Soldering and Welding

Stereo and Phonographs

Sunlamps, Sunproducts

Technical Information

(safety, misc.

)

Television

Thermometers

Toasters

Trash Compactors

Tricycles

Trimmers

Vacuum Cleaners

Vehicle Safety

Washers

Water Heaters
APPENDIX B

CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Air conditioning and refrigeration equipment

Electric housewares and fans

Major household appliances

Radio receivers and television sets, phonographs and record

players, speakers

Plumbing fixtures

Paint, varnish and lacquer

Consumer, scientific, technical glassware

Carpets and rugs

Apparel

Sheets, pillowcases and towels

Gloves and mittens

Shoes and slippers

Mattresses, bedsprings and sleep furniture

Office furniture

- 41 -
APPENDIX C

SAMPLE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REPORT

CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REPORTS

Major Household Appliances

1975

bred July 1976

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IXiring 1975 the total value of shipments was $4,020.6

million. This figure includes electric ranges over 2-1/4

kilowatts, $636.3 million; domestic cooking appliances (except electric), $259.6 million; household refrig- erators, $1,119.7 million; food freezers, $430.0 million; household washing machines and dryers, $ 1 ,060.7

million; electric water heaters, $142.8 million; water

heater (except electric), $199.9 million; dishwashing

machines, food waste disposers/and household trash compactors, $482.6 million; and household floor waxing and polishing machines, $ 1 8.4 million.

DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY

This has been a continuous survey since 1968. The

data contained in this publication were collected on

Census annual form MA-36F, Major Household Appliances, from all known producers of major household

appliances with total shipments over $100 thousand. For 1975, there were 89 companies. The figures on

quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments from the reporting establishments and in- clude all products whether for domestic consumption

or for export. Imports are excluded. The value of ship- ments, f.o.b. plant, excludes discounts and allowances,

freight charges and excise taxes. Products bought and

told without any further manufacture are excluded. The figures for the current year may include esti- mates for respondents whose reports were not received

in time for tabulation. Such missing figures are im- puted from the year-to-year movements shown by

reporting firms and are generally limited to a maximum

of 10 percent to any one item. Individual items with

higher imputation rates are footnoted.

SERIES: MA-36F(75)-1

RELATED REPORTS

Table 1 shows value of shipments figures collected on Form MA-36F, compared with data collected in die 1973 Annual Survey of Manufactures, and in die 1974 Annual Survey of manufactures.

Table 3 provides a comparison between data on

domestic output (shipments) and exports. This table is included in the publication to provide a convenient means for comparing domestic and foreign trade. Comparable import data are not currently available. The Bureau of the Census also publishes Current

Industrial Reports on other types of household appli- ances as follows:

MA-35M Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment MA-36E Electric Housewares and Fans MA-36M Radio Receivers and Television Sets, Phonographs and Record Players, Speakers, and Related Equipment

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared in the Industry Division, Bureau of the Census, under the direction of Malcolm E. Bernhardt, Chief, Current Durables Branch. Kenneth E. McBcth, assisted by Odelle S. Thomas, was

directly responsible for the review of the data and

preparation of the report. Milton Eiscn, Chief of the Division, and James S. Werking, Assistant Chief for Current Programs,. provided overall direction and co- ordination to this project.

Inquiries concerning these figures should oe addressed to the U S. Department of Commerce. 8ureau of the Census, Industry

Oivision, Washington, D.C. 20233, or cell Odelle S. Thomas, (301) 763-2824.

U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

For »*i« by t f>e Subscriber Services Section (Publication*). Buniu of the Census, W*»hlngton, D.C. 20233, or any

U.S. Department of Commerce district office. Postege lUmpi not eccepteoie; currency submitted et tender'* risk, ftemlttencet from foreign count net mutt be by mternetionel money order or by e e»eft on e U.S. benk. Prtcei tt

cent* per copy.

- 42 -
2

Table 1. --VAU/t Of llPttKTI OT MAJOt HOUSEHOLD KPTL I AMC 1 8 Wt CL4M Of PHOOOCT : 1975, 1974 AM> 1971

(la alllloa of dollars)

Product

code

De script lorn 1975, HA-36F

1974 1973

MA -36/ Annual Survey

of ManufacturesHA -367 Annual Survey

of Kanuf seturee

36311 pt. Electric household ranges and ovens and surface cooking

unit ei(U ipnent , and parts (escept small appliances) 1 636.3 705.8 <*) 666.7 706.1

36312 Household ovens and ranges, equipment and parts, except electric:

36312 00 Domest lc cooking appliances (except electric) 259.6 266.3 303.7

36312 12 Css barbecuere, grills and braziers for out-

(>)

36312 32 Other than gas (charcoal, etc.) barbecuere.

(') 4«6 0 grills and braziers for outdoor cooking (') (') (»)

36312 98 pt. Parts for cooking equipment (except electric)

sold separately (') (') l

<’>

36321 Household refrigerators, including combination refrlgoralor-f 1,119.7 1,249.2 (') 1,275.4 1,319.5

36322 Home and (arm freezers 430.0 466.7 (')

r 309.4 312.2

36331 Household sashing machines, dryers, and washer-dryer combinations 1.060.7

r l,142.3 <*) 1,222.7 1,233.9

36391 ester heaters, electric 142.8 r 147 .2 (') 139.3 136.1

36392 Water heaters (except electric) 199.9 172.0 (') 163.5 174.9

36394 Dishwashing machines and food waste disposers 462.6 550.4 (*) 566.0 549.6

36399 pt

.

Other household appliances and parts' 18.4 19.7 (') 24.4 *92.2

He vised bv 5 percent or mors f rn* previously published figures.

•product code J631181, parts srd accessories (or household electric ranges and ovens such burners, rotisserles, oven racks, brollwr p.ins, etc., *htih are sold separately, are only collected in the annual survey of manufactures and census of manufactures.

•bat* lor the 1974 annual survey of manufactures were nut available at t lie tire of this publication.

•Those dais are only collected on the annual survey of manufacture# and the census of manufactures,

t code 39399 91, pmrts and accessories (or slectric eater heaters are collected om 1 j In the Annual Survey of llseufacturss amd

the Otneue of Msmifact urea

.

43
3

Table 2 - --OUAHTITT A*D VALL'I Of MlwrUTS TO* KAJCM HOUSEHOLD A PPL I A 9C E3 19/5 ARC 1974

1975 1974 Product cod*

limber

of com pen lea Quant It y (1.000

unite)

Value

(all I Ion dol lara)

l£j«nt it

y

« 1.000 unlta)

Value

<e 1 1 1 ion dol lara)

MAJOU HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES . TOTAL (X) (X) (X) 4.719

59)11 00 Electric ranger over 2-1 '4 kllovaite, total <X> (X) 6)6. ) (X> 705 6

)6)11 11

36)11 21 14)11 24 i*m 26

)6 3 1 1 32 16)11 14 16)11 16

16)11 5) 5631 1 55 36)11 61

Pree-etand ing ranges (aldths are baaed oa outatde

d leena Iona)

:

Under 2) Inches in eldth. all types. Including

• parteent n»uae type 2) lnchea up to and Including 32 Inches In eldth:

Lc*e oven

High oven

High- loe oven

33 In* he s and over In eldth:

U>« oven and or slide-ln

High oven

Hlgh-loe oven

Other than f ree-a t and 1 ng

:

Built-In rangea: Built-In ovena

:

Single oven.

TVo ovena Surface cooking tope

36)11 63

36)11 72

36)11 7)

36)11 74

)6 ii i ec>

Drop- In ranges Household electronic stoves and ovena (eicluding elcro-eave HUro-eeve ranges and ovena (eacludlng portable ovena) (Include double oven rangea If either or both ovens

gre tcro-eave) . . . Hlcro-eave ovens, portable- Other electric rangee not listed above

36)12 00

16)12 11 36)1? 1) 16)1? 15 16)12 17 36)12 19

16)12 21 36)12 2)

36)12 24

)6)12 96

)6 )? 1 00

)6)21 07

)6)2 1 Oft 36)21 15 36)21 16 36 37 I |7 36)21 21 36)21 22 36)21 77 36J2I )) 36)21 16 16)21 4 2 36)21 44 36)21 46

16)21 4ft 36)21 61

Domestic cooking appl tancea (eacept electric), total

Gas : Standard type, f ree-a t and Ing Oven 12 cooking top and oven. . . . . Oven 24 * to ).’ OMtklng tup and <'ven Apartnc.it rnngcs (26 cooking top and under). Standard type, for built-in Installation. . . ...... Surface c.Miking tups (one or more burners) (ouant Ity In nuaber or top unite) Honatandard typ»»

k a 1 I hung

SI ids- In or drop- in (Including as one unit a drop- in cooking surface elth a allele- In ! Hot plate*. . .

All other domestic cooking appliances (eacept electric) (Cungatoe rangea. coal and «nud rangea, coal and eo»d cook atovee. kerosene rangea. etc.)

Houaelaold refrigerators. Including combination refrigeratorf reeaera. total Complete units

6.4 cubic feet and under

6.5 to 8 4 cubic feet - ... 85 to 9.4 cubic feet

9 3 to 10 4 cubic feel. ....

10 5 to 11.4 cubic feet 11.3 to 17.4 cubic feel 12.3 to I) 4 cubic feet..

1) 3 to 14.4 cubic feat

14 5 to 13.4 ruble feet 13.3 In 16 4 cubic fret..

16. 5 to 17 .4 ruble feet

I 7 3 to 18 4 c,ul Ir fret

18 3 to 19 4 cubic reel

19 5 ruble feet and ••ver Aa«ge-ref r Igeraior and or sink combination . ...

15 97.2

24 1.329.0

9 16.5

18 148.8

24 3.2 • 3.9 51.1

1)00

1.718 ft 3) 6

r20u 2

14 2

310 l 6 2

r 46.2

31.1

1813

18

2)2.5

91.1 381.0

18.4 23-9

45 6

r 297 ) 124. 1 441.2

30 7 452

12 240.) 47.5 39)4

(X) (X) 259.6 (X) 266 3

20

19

1616

185-1 957 8 181.4 97.8

34 0 162.5

17 5 17.0

215 6 1.002 7 205 5 117.7

13 116.) 7.4 1)64

1 }

8 0 180.9

14.5

158 0

17./

16.7

7 4

16 92.9 117 5

7 10

3

31 7

99.4

604 1

764.4

262.2

18 ). 2 692.8

204 4 518.9 810.6

)8 8

4.7 20.1

12.7

90.7 |

144.2

95 0

855 5 1.087 9 80?

87. ) 173.7

52 6 157 0

304 l \ 12.5 U

466 8 55) 6 710 9 114 I 597.5

1.005 |

3. 1

10 0

112 I 178.9

91. ) 111 6 158 ) 70 0

164 4 )4f 3

fee fnntmntea at eitd of table

- 44 -
4

Tkb 1 • 2. - -QUANTITY AND VALUE OF SMIPMirrS FOR MAJOR HOUSEHOLD APRLI A.MC0 : 117) AMD 1974--Coit lau*4

45

3

.2
I

Table 2 . —QUANTITY AMD VAUTt Of MIPUZJTTI OF HAJO* HOI'S FHOLD APTUAHCFS 19?) A HD 1974—Coat 1 sued

rAevlicd by 5 percent or aore fro* previously published flfure*.

(Ii hot applicable.

*F Ifurea for "Dryers: gss" are Included eltb Washer-dryer combinations (in one cabinet).

46
« TibU 3 - -KAJO* BUnaj *mi wen- fRIPIOJTt AJIO EXPORTS FOR SELTCTU) PRCH3UCTB 19/S ART) 1*7*

( Manuf sc tgrtri' iMpMnti represent quantity and value (f.o.b. plant) of physical shipments. Including interplant tranafera. f roa tltab- llatusents during each year. Export values are values at seaport , bonUr point, or airport of exportation: they are baaed on selllcf

price. Including freight, insurance, and other charges to the port of exportation. Decause Manufacturers' shlpnents of certain products nay be used as Materials for lncorporat Ion into other products. It a>y not be valid to coapsre exports elth shipments for cuablaatloca

of product groups. See "Lt al t at lasts on the Comparison of Export, I sport, and Output Hats'')

fSA) Not available. (X) Not applicable. ViMp*rl»«t of Standard Industrial Claaalf Icat ton based-codes and Schodule B nuMbers la as folltws:

Product

cade Product Schedule B Export NisxbcrS

3A3 11 H, 21. 24. 28, 32. ^

34, 38. S3. SS. 81.

i.S. 71. 79. 81 J 38312 11. 13. 15. 17. 19. \

21. 73. 24. 98 36321 07, 08. 15. 16. 17, \ 21. 22. 27. 33. 36. 1 42, 44, 46, 48 38322 13. 16. 19. 21. 22. >

24, 25. 27. 28. 31. ( 32. 34, 35, 41. 43.

J 45. 47 I 36331 31. 38. 39. 51, 55. 81. 85 j

nectrlc home- type ranges, parts and accessories .

IWKltlc cooking appliances (except electric)

Household refrigerators, lncltxlfng combination

725.05 05, 1

697.10 30. 40

Homo and far* free sera

Household Mechanical sashing Machines, dryers and

• saher-dryer eoablnettone

725.01 20

(7 25 . 02 10. 30. 40 \717.15 80. 85 36391 11-15, 98 36392 12. 24. 32, 42. 51. 'i 53 . 55 j 3*394 12. 1« J6399 83

ster heaters, electric

1*1 sheaahlng Machines, portable and built-in

rl nor saxlng and polishing Machines

719.62 45 725.03 30

'*nurrs: Bureau of the Census Report FT <»10, I'.i. Exports- -Schedule R Cnaandlty by Country. 'includes parts for aon-electrl« household typo esshers.. *lnrludes value at parts. • Incites parts for daawatlc ester heaters.

47
7

LIMITATIONS ON THE COMPARISON OF EXPORT. IMPORT, AND DOMESTIC OUTPUT DATA

Generally, it is somewhat easier to find a reasonable

statistical basis for a comparison of exports with domestic output than for a comparison of imports with domestic output. Aside from the differences in the

basic commodity classifications used, there are a substantia! number of imported commodities which are not produced in the United States or arc produced in very small quantities. On the other hand, the merchandise exported from the United States is ordinarily produced in this country and reflects items important

in output.

There are other problems affecting the comparability of the three sets of data. Differences in methods

of valuation is perhaps the principal such problem.

There may be elements of duplication in output data

but not in imports or exports; low-value transactions

arc excluded from data lor individual export and

import commodity classifications; and a small portion of manufacturing output is not allocated to detailed commodity lines. All of these factors affect comparability to some degree. For these reasons the relation- ships shown in this report should be considered as only approximations.

(a) Valuation Domestic producers' shipments,

or production, are usually valued at the point of

production the factory, mine, or farm. On the other hand, exports ate by definition valued at the point of exportation -seaport, border

point, or airport. Export values arc the selling price, or

cost if not sold, and include expenditures for freight, insurance, and other charges to the export point.

Further, the exporters' trade margin above costs

increases the export values compared with producers'

values. Information on the magnitude of this incre- mental margin on a comniodity-by-commodity basis is not available.

The dollar value shown for imports in the basic

statistic s is defined ordinarily as the market value in the foreign country and excludes U.S. import duties, transportation, insurance, and other costs. In actual

practice only the values reported for imports suhicct to an ad valorem rale of duty (accounting for 10 to 15 percent of total ini|ior(s) lend to conform to this definition. For other imports, the reported values may

inadvertently include ocean freight; mtracontpany ship- ments may reflect arbttiary values, etc.

Thus, import values lend to understate the unit

prices at which imported goods arc sold in the U.S. market, in that they do not cover transportation, insurance costs, import duties, and othet costs. By the same token, the total value of imports relative to domestic output tends to be understated if viewed at the point of entry into the U S. market. The calculated

value of import duties is shown separately for each

commodity line in the table, but siillicient inloimation

is not available on the transportation, insurance, and

other costs tor individual commodities lor those costs

to be shown in this report.

(b) Duplication in Quantity and Value of Out- put- Because producers' shipments of some commodities may be used as materials lor incorporation

into other commodities, combinations of data for such commodities may contain a certain amount ol duplication. Thus, percentages of exports to output or imports

to apparent consumption (output plus tm|iorls minus

exports) at 4-dtgit or broader levels may be understated.Where the duplication is known to be substantial,

the output data arc appropriately noted in the table.

(c) Low-Value Export and Import Transactions Commodity information is not shown lor individual imports valued under $251. I oi exports, commodity

information is not reported for shipments individually valued under S25I effective October I'Hor and for shipments valued under SltX) prior to October 1‘Hi‘J This is believed to have only negligible effect on the

statistics for the bulk of the commodities.

(d) Manufacturers' Shipments, Not Specified by Kind-Thc value of manufacturers' shipments at the

4-digit commodity level often includes a small amount

which is not distributed among the individual 5-digit product classes. Export and import percentages at the more detailed levels might thus be slightly overstated.

(c) Time Lag Between Output and Exports There

will sometimes be a lag between the time a commodity

is produced or shipped by the producer and the time it

is actually exported. The time lag will usually be

greater if the merchandise moves through inter- mediaries (wholesalers, exporters) rather than directly from producers into the export market. Otdinarily. this type of discrepancy would not be very important in annual figures.

(0 “Direct" vs “Total" Commodity Exports The commodity export data in this repoit represent direct exports of those commodities. They do not include the exports of the commodities which arc incorporated

into other, more finished products and exported m

finished form. Tims, hv showing only direct exports,

the relation of exports to output for intermediate

products, such as steel shapes and forms, is consider- ably understated The figure for steel exported as such, does not include steel incorporated in automobiles,

tractors, etc., which ate also exported.

(g) Used Commodities With a few exceptions, used or rebuilt commodities are classified in the same

import or export codes as is new merchandise.

Percentages arc thus overstated to the extent that used

or rebuilt products arc significant in trade.

- 48 -
REFERENCES

1. U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and

Technology, "Procedures for a Voluntary Consumer Product

Information Labeling Program," Federal Register 42,

No. 101, pp. 26647-26651 CMay 25, 1977).

2. Consumer Reports published monthly by Consumers Union

of the United States, Inc., 256 Washington Street,

Mount Vernon, NY 10550.

3. Consumers' Research includes annual handbook of buying,

published monthly by Consumers' Research, Inc.,

Washington, NJ 07882.

4. Canadian Consumer published bi-monthly by Consumers'

Association of Canada, 801-251 Laurier Avenue, West,

Ottawa, Ontario K1P5Z7, Canada.

5. WHICH? published monthly by Consumers' Association,

14 Buckingham Street, London WC2N 6DS, England.

6 . Consumers Index to Product Evaluations and Information

Sources published quarterly plus annual cumulation by

Pieran Press, P.O. Box 1808, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

7. Consumer Review published bi-monthly by International

Organization of Consumer Unions, The Hague, Netherlands.

8. Slattery, William J. , Tabulation of Voluntary Standards

and Certification Programs for Consumer Products , Nat.

Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Tech. Note 948, 187 pages (June 1977).

9. Grossnickle, Linda L. , ed.

,

An Index of State Specifications

and Standards , Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 375,

394 pages (September 1973)

.

10. Chumas, Sophie, ed.

,

Directory of United States Standardization Activities , Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 417,

228 pages (November 1975).

11. Chumas, Sophie, ed.

,

Index of International Standards , Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 390, 222 pages

(March 1974 )

.

12. Slattery, William J. , An Index of U.S. Voluntary Engineering

Standards , Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 329,

1,000 pages (March 1971): Spec. Publ. 329, Supplement 1,

1,459 pages (December 1972): Spec. Publ. 329, Supplement 2,

2,472 pages (May 1975).

- 49 -
13 . Fisk, Margaret, ed. , Encyclopedia of Associations

Vols. 1-3, No. 10, Gale Research Company, Detroit, MI

C1976) .

14. Colgate, Craig, Jr., ed. , National Trade and Professional

Associations of the United States and Canada and Labor

Unions (12th Annual edition) Columbia Books, Washington

DC (1973).

15. Accident Facts published annually by the National Safety

Council, 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611.

16. Current Industrial Reports published monthly by

Bureau of the Census (U.S.), Washington, DC 20233.

17. Annual Survey of Manufactures conducted in years not

covered by the Census of Manufactures by Bureau of the

Census (U.S.), Washington, DC 20233.

18. U.S. Industrial Outlook published annually by Department

of Commerce (U.S.), Washington, DC 20234.

19. Consumer Expenditure Survey Series , Bureau of Labor

Statistics (U.S.), Washington, DC: Diary Survey 1972

and 1973, Report Series 448-1,2 and 3: Interview

Survey 1972 and 1973, Report Series 455-1, 2 and 3.

20. "55th Statistical Issue and Marketing Report,"

Merchandising 2, No. 3, Billboard Publications, New Yob

NY (March 1977).

21. "24th Annual Statistical Review: 1967-1976," Appliance

34, No. 4, Dana Chase Publications, Elmhurst, IL

(April 1977)

.

22. "Databank" is a monthly insert in Home Furnishings Daily

published 4 times a week by Fairchild Publications Inc.

7 E. 12th Street, New York, NY 10003.

23. Daniels, Lorna M. , Business Information Sources , Univ. of

California Press, Berkeley, CA, 439 pages (1976 )

.

24. MACAP Statistical Report published annually by Major

Appliance Consumer Action Panel, 20 North Wacker

Drive, Chicago, IL 60606.

25. Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. and Marketing Science

Institute, Consumerism at the Crossroads, A National

Opinion Research Survey of Public Activist, Business ant

Regulator Attitudes Toward the Consumer Movement , Sentry Insurance, Stevens Point, Wisconsin (1977).

- 50 -
26 . The 1972 National Consumer Referendum sponsored by the

Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., Washington,

DC (1972).

27 . The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment

published quarterly by Survey Research Center, Institute

for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI 48106.

28. Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index published

monthly by Conference Board, Inc., 845 Third Avenue,

New York, NY 10022.

29 . Summary Report, Product Quality, Performance, and Cost , NAE 1 s Program on Product Quality, Performance and Cost,

Washington, DC, April 24-30, 1971, 12 pages (National

Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 1971).

30. Greyser, Stephen A. and Reece, Bonnie B., "Businessmen

Look Hard At Advertising," Harvard Business Review

(May-June 1971) Reprint No. 71306.

31. Barksdale, Hiram C. , Darded, William R. , and

Perreault, Jr., William D. , "Changes in Consumer

Attitudes Toward Marketing, Consumerism and Government

Regulation: 1971-1975," Journal of Consumer Affairs

10, No. 2, pp. 117-139 (Winter 1976).

32. Andreason, Alan R. , and Best, Arthur, "Consumers Complain

Does Business Respond?" Harvard Business Review

pp. 93-101 (July-August 1977).

33. MACAP Statistical Report January, 196 8-December 31, 1976 , pp. 1-6, Major Appliance Consumer Action Panel, 20 North

Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 (1977).

34. First Annual Survey published by National Association of

Home Builders Research Foundation, 627 Southlawn Lane,

Rockville, MD 20850.

35. Dyer, Robert F. and Shimp, Terence A, "Enhancing the

Role of Marketing Research In Public Policy Decision

Making," Journal of Marketing , pp. 63-67 (January 1977).

36. Sheth, Jagdish N. , Models of Buyer Behavior , 441 pages

(Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1974).

37. Kotler , Philip, "Consumer Markets and Buyer Behavior,"

Marketing Management , pp. 69-97 (Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ , 1976).

- 51 -
38 . Nicosia, Francesco M. , and Lancaster, Kelvin J.

,

Technological Change, Product Proliferation, and

Consumer Decision Processes Vols. 1-7, University of

California, Berkeley and Columbia University, New York,

NY (August 1974).

39. Perreault, Jr., William D. , ed.

,

Advances In Consumer

Research Volume IV , Proceedings of the Seventh Annual

Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,

Atlanta, GA, October 28-31, 1976, 419 pages (Associatior

for Consumer Research, Atlanta, GA, 1977)

.

40. Kassarjian, Harold H. and Robertson, Thomas S.,

Perspectives In Consumer Behavior , rev.

,

604 pages

(Scott, Foresman and Company, IL, 1973).

41. Wilkie, William L. , How Consumers Use Product Information : An Assessment of Research in Relation To Public Policy

Needs , 70 pages (National Science Foundation, Washington.

DC, 1974).

42. Rogers, Everett M. , "New Product Adoption and Diffusion,"

Journal of Consumer Research 2, No. 4, pp. 290-302

(March 1976 )

.

43. Taylor, James W. , "The Role of Risk In Consumer Behavior,"

Journal of Marketing 38, pp. 54-60 (April 1974).

44. Maynes, E. Scott, "The Power of the Consumer," Human

Behavior In Economic Affairs , pp. 394-419 (Jossey-Bass

Inc., Washington, DC, 1972).

45. Kotler, Philip, "What Consumerism Means For Marketers,"

Harvard Business Review 50, No. 4, pp. 48-57 (May-June

1972) .

46. Strumpel, Burkhard, Morgan James N. , and Zohn , Ernest, eds

,

Human Behavior In Economic Affairs , 590 pages (JosseyBass, Inc., Washington, DC, 1972).

j

- 52 -
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

78-1450

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

title and SUBTITLE

PRODUCT SELECTION FOR THE VOLUNTARY CONSUMER

PRODUCT INFORMATION LABELING PROGRAM

5. Publication Date March 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

AUTHOR(S)

Eugene C. McDowell, Elizabeth Robertson, and

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Steven Spivak

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

!. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as item 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

i. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

t. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

The U.S. Department of Commerce has commenced a voluntary consumer

product information labeling program CCPILP) . Any person may

propose products to be labeled under that program.

This document presents a method for screening proposed products

to determine whether they are appropriate for labeling. The

method also provides a foundation for documenting a finding of

need for a label.

7. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Consumer information; consumer products; labeling; selection.

8. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED 57

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CH

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

|~y^ Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS) * Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED $ 5.25
-