I really don’t know why you think that OJ “shouldn’t be rated altogether”, nor do I understand why you think that is evidence of your point.
Further, sure, taste is subjective, but if I found out that double blind testing of OJ found that most people didn’t find the more expensive stuff better tasting (or indeed couldn’t tell the difference) that would be interesting and useful. That doesn’t mean that all readers are going to find they like the cheap stuff, because taste varies, but it does perhaps mean that many readers who had been buying the more expensive stuff assuming it was better might try the cheaper stuff and most would find it OK.
I suspect the foundation of the problem is this:
1/ Hype is almost by definition anti-factual
2/ The inverse of 1/ is that facts are anti-hype
3/ CR is an empirically based (ie factual) organisation
4/ It is consequently inevitable that CR’s activities are anti-hype.
This doesn’t have to involve any accusation of bias. It’s just a natural outcome of what CR does.
Apparently I do. But I’m not judging.
This was just one of many examples I can relate about CR.
Don’t get me wrong, I think CR is OK as a starting point if you know absolutely nothing about a product and expense means nothing in the equation. But factor in cost and features of how and why you need a product will cause a major divergence from what they say is a good buy compared to what an educated consumer will call a good buy. If money is of no concern then in “most” cases price reflects quality, but not always. Some features that CR rates are useless to many people. Why should that be used as a plus verses a minus? For instance…a camera with a large pixel count is great and expensive, but its a known fact that after a certain point the eye can’t distinguish large pixel count. CR would typically rate the large pixel count as higher than one of less count. But in reality in won’t count at all.
Now lets take cars as another example. Well that’s another whole can of worms that is just too much for this thread. Let’s just say that I’ve bought many a car that CR rated as low, but I have had great success with. But I do very though investigation before I buy.
I think the rating is a jumping off point, not the criteria you use to justify the purchase. If the $500 washing machine is rated higher than the $1000 machine, that should be the signal to take a closer look at why.
It might be nice to know in advance that the refrigerator’s shelves are held by easily breakable supports instead of sturdy supports, and maybe you should fork out the extra $100 to avoid a problem down the road.
I also liked their used car ratings, where they consolidate data from their readership on reliability. How else can you find out that model XYZ from 2005 has a history of transmission problems that the 2006 model doesn’t have, because of a redesign?
I think their used car ratings are excellent and reliable. When I look up my cars, the things they say are unreliable exactly match what I’ve had to fix or learn to live with on my cars. I would definitely check CR before buying a used car.
I am influenced to some extent by CR’s ratings of machinery/electronics, mostly to the extent that if something has a bad rating over something I deem important, I’ll steer clear of it.
I don’t read their ratings of food or drink except for amusement; way too subjective.
I don’t see “bias” in their reports, at least not anymore. Under previous management CR thought it was its mission to promote environmental responsibility and thus uniformly panned SUVs (for example). That has ceased. Also it appeared to me that they used to be in love with foreign (especially Japanese) cars and unduly promoted them over American ones, something that has eased considerably (either because U.S.-made quality has improved, Japanese quality has taken hits or some other reason).
One remaining problem with their electronics ratings is not exactly CR’s fault - but I find that models turn over so rapidly that CR winds up rating products that are no longer widely available, and haven’t yet reviewed the new stuff.
CR has done responsible and evidence-based reviews of “dietary supplements”, of which I am appreciative.
At my local store there are probably 3 frozen brands of orange juice and four unfrozen brands. Go to Trader Joes and Walmart and there are more choices. The best I’ve found (Tropicana Not From Concentrate) is several dollars per half gallon more than some others. That could run an extra 100 dollars per year.
To try all 10 or so local options would be tough, particularly since there could be small variations in shipment to shipment. If Consumer Reports wants to compare all the major national options head-to-head with samples purchased from multiple locations and throw fresh-squeezed into the equation… I’m interested in the results intellectually and financially.
I know nothing about this subject personally but I have never heard anyone opine about US vs Japanese cars in recent decades that did not consider precisely that US cars went through a seriously crappy period but have since improved.
Against that background, maybe they weren’t in love but just reporting the facts?
I’m assuming that you’re talking about the customer reviews on the websites for Home Depot and Lowes. And yes, I also read those, as well as the reviews on Amazon’s website and other such sites when I’m looking at a product. The problem is that such reviews are, of course, subjective and the reviewers aren’t generally comparing the item against other similar items. So the advantage of the Consumer Reports approach is that they are comparing multiple items and also that they attempt to fairly compare the items.
So if they’re reviewing refrigerators, for example, their reviews will describe the different models and give subjective impressions of how them. But they might also use a thermocouple to test how well the refrigerators keep the temperature constant, and how evenly they cool the contents. The average reviewer on a website doesn’t have the equipment necessary to do this and certainly didn’t do it for 25 models. There are very few other sources of objective, empirical data for consumer goods. (I used to use PC Magazine for computers and there’s dpreview.com for digital cameras.)
I find them very useful for big-ticket purchases such as appliances and cars. Their reviews of electronics are much less useful (except for their brand reliability/rate of repair estimates, which seem to be relatively on-target).
I don’t think a given person’s preference would or should change based on what a given group of CR testers thought.
No doubt that happens in some cases. But it’s not inevitable that it happens in all cases. If you like numbered lists, try this:
[ol]
[li]One of the primary purposes of CR is so help people see past the hype in purchasing products.[/li][li]If CR, in a given instance, assists people to avoid a product that they might have otherwise purchased due to hype, then they’ve performed a valuable service, both as regards to this specific purchase and the general lesson that hype doesn’t indicate value.[/li][li]If CR, in a given instance, simply confirms that the hype is on target, and that people should buy the exact same product that they would have purchased without CR and based on hype, then they’ve added nothing, neither as regards to this purchase nor in general.[/li][li]People like to feel that they’re adding something of value in their work. In addition, they need to add value in order to convinve others to avail themselves of their services.[/li][li]Therefore, CR employees and management have a bias in favor of recommending against products which are hyped.[/li][/ol]
I haven’t paid much attention to them in many years, but back when I did, they had some incidents of embarrassing confusion about consumer electronics. Things like rating models of one brand of VCR better than those of another brand…when the models were, in fact, identical machines made on the same assembly line. (The only difference was the brand badge).
Aside from that, they generally seemed okay, but I never had much use for them.
For an example of the converse, when the Miata first came out they said they couldn’t rate it a best buy because you couldn’t fit a wheelchair in the trunk. Given that I didn’t even own a wheelchair I bought the car anyway.
Yes I do. I don’t always buy the #1 top rated thing - either because of price or because the features that I want aren’t the highest rated of the feature set - but I often consult there. Mostly for electronics.
I subscribe to their new magazine ShopSmart and they do more casual ratings (ie not with the big matrix or even a points system) and while I like the magazine, I am slightly turned off by how it’s so geared towards women. Granted, I’m a woman but I was really pissed off at something reviewed recently that got top marks for being “cute.” I think it was a dishwasher or something that didn’t need to be cute.
But that’s just a nitpick on an offshoot of CR, not the concept or labs of CR themselves. I’m totally down with them otherwise.
I tell you what - when I went to buy my dishwasher I intended to buy the one CR recommended, but got lured in by a scratch and dent price on a much, much more expensive dishwasher.
But back to the original question: are the high end models from a particular mfg. all that better than the low end ones? If Bosch sells a washer at $1000…and a lower model for $500-is it worth spending the extra $500? Or is it like a Chevrolet vs Cadillac?
It is impossible to answer this question. The more-expensive model will presumably have more features than the less-expensive model, but there’s no guarantee you’ll care about any of these features, or that they’ll make a significant difference in the effectiveness of whatever functionality you care about.
Good point. Our current dishwasher has lots of bells and whistles. Since the day we bought it, we have only used one single setting. In many cases the higher priced units from the same manufacturer are in fact the same basic model with extra features on them. Why do you think every washing machine brand can offer a lifetime tub warranty? All the tubs come from the same factory or use the same material or manufacturing method.
Another good example is today’s kitchen and bathroom faucets. They all come with lifetime warranty. But the high end (and usually higher price) Moens, Deltas and American Standards will hold up much better than the Aquafresh or Peerless models.
Hot water tanks are another example. Never buy the high priced model of the same brand heater with the longer warranty. The units are the same no matter what. The manufacture is getting a higher price only because he is willing to warrant for a longer period. And statistics show the vast majority will last at least the warranty time of the longest warranted unit they sell.
And last but not least look up Electrolux on Google and see what brand names they sell (over 50, including the likes of Electrolux, AEG, Eureka and Frigidaire). Do you really think each brand is in competition with the other to make a better unit? Corporate logic says make the best marketable product the most inexpensive way and then do it across all brands names.
PS…About your comment " Or is it like a Chevrolet vs Cadillac?" Same basic car with the same basic design, but differences in quality,care of assembly and quality control and in return a higher price. And of course the bells and whistles you can’t get on a Chevy
But I’m not judging.