![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Consumer Reports
Nov. 8th, 2007 08:51 amI had never really had an opinion on Consumer Reports before now. Have you heard of them either? I mean, they get mentioned, like in TV commercials and occasionally when a news story needs some kind of filler to contextualize a news story about a consumer product. (Typing that made me realize how fucking ridiculous TV news stories can be.)
Well, so I work for this air cleaner manufacturer now.
Consumer Reports apparently loves to write stories about how air cleaners are good for nothing. I mean, good for them, they took on Sharper Image in a legal battle after they pointed out that the fucking Ionic Breeze does worse than nothing. (Not only does it *not* remove any pollutants from the air, it actually adds them, but that's a rant for another time.)
But then they went on to say that no air filters work at all, which is kind of, well... I mean, why do hospitals and high-tech manufacturers bother having clean rooms if filtration is useless? I mean... whatever.
So they've come out with another Shocking Expose of Air Cleaners, and again, we're mentioned. It's the worst throwaway line ever: "Although our latest tests [1] show that the [competitor of ours who ripped off our design] and Austin Air removed cooking odors, that capability will be reduced with use."
Nice vague throwaway line. Yes, the filter gives out after about five years. I suppose you could say that its capacity is reduced with use. Thanks for being so specific.
But the weird part is where they rate all the cleaners and say how much they cost to operate, in power consumption and in replacement filters. So they say our larger machine costs $450 (true) and will cost about $96 per year in electricity. I haven't done my own math but that sounds not unreasonable-- the fan motor takes 120 watts on high, and is designed for 24-hour use, so, I dunno how much a watt-hour costs, but it doesn't sound ridiculous.
But then it claims that the filter replacements will cost $95 a year.
Is anyone better at math than me? Can you figure out how a $180 filter that's supposed to last 5 years but could conceivably only last 4 will wind up costing $95/yr? Where the hell did they get that figure? I'm seriously trying to work it out, but so far am failing. It'd be one thing if they just said they didn't believe our filters would really last 5 years, and said 2 instead, but that still wouldn't be $95... What?
Now I'm just confused.
I mean, it could've been worse, they could've just printed random numbers they made up... oh wait, they did. Well, whatever.
I'm not ranting in anger or anything, I'm just wondering why they bother if they're not going to say anything either accurate or useful. And why do people read the magazine? I understand the idea of wanting to tell people about things you buy and whether they work, but the fact that I know so little and can already tell that they don't know what they're talking about makes me really wonder about how much good they are for the things I know nothing at all about.
__________________
[1] Nowhere do they describe these tests, so we don't know what they're talking about here. The last test they did was demonstrably flawed in that it was *very* biased toward electrostatic precipitators and did not take any actual real-life considerations into effect. (It was done in a stainless steel room with a controlled stream of measured particles being emitted. A major air cleaner retailer repeated the experiment but in an office with furniture and normal air flow, and our class of machines totally blew away all the electrostatic precipitators, but whatever; obviously Consumer Reports is mostly interested in making charts and graphs and less interested in how you actually live with the thing.)
Well, so I work for this air cleaner manufacturer now.
Consumer Reports apparently loves to write stories about how air cleaners are good for nothing. I mean, good for them, they took on Sharper Image in a legal battle after they pointed out that the fucking Ionic Breeze does worse than nothing. (Not only does it *not* remove any pollutants from the air, it actually adds them, but that's a rant for another time.)
But then they went on to say that no air filters work at all, which is kind of, well... I mean, why do hospitals and high-tech manufacturers bother having clean rooms if filtration is useless? I mean... whatever.
So they've come out with another Shocking Expose of Air Cleaners, and again, we're mentioned. It's the worst throwaway line ever: "Although our latest tests [1] show that the [competitor of ours who ripped off our design] and Austin Air removed cooking odors, that capability will be reduced with use."
Nice vague throwaway line. Yes, the filter gives out after about five years. I suppose you could say that its capacity is reduced with use. Thanks for being so specific.
But the weird part is where they rate all the cleaners and say how much they cost to operate, in power consumption and in replacement filters. So they say our larger machine costs $450 (true) and will cost about $96 per year in electricity. I haven't done my own math but that sounds not unreasonable-- the fan motor takes 120 watts on high, and is designed for 24-hour use, so, I dunno how much a watt-hour costs, but it doesn't sound ridiculous.
But then it claims that the filter replacements will cost $95 a year.
Is anyone better at math than me? Can you figure out how a $180 filter that's supposed to last 5 years but could conceivably only last 4 will wind up costing $95/yr? Where the hell did they get that figure? I'm seriously trying to work it out, but so far am failing. It'd be one thing if they just said they didn't believe our filters would really last 5 years, and said 2 instead, but that still wouldn't be $95... What?
Now I'm just confused.
I mean, it could've been worse, they could've just printed random numbers they made up... oh wait, they did. Well, whatever.
I'm not ranting in anger or anything, I'm just wondering why they bother if they're not going to say anything either accurate or useful. And why do people read the magazine? I understand the idea of wanting to tell people about things you buy and whether they work, but the fact that I know so little and can already tell that they don't know what they're talking about makes me really wonder about how much good they are for the things I know nothing at all about.
__________________
[1] Nowhere do they describe these tests, so we don't know what they're talking about here. The last test they did was demonstrably flawed in that it was *very* biased toward electrostatic precipitators and did not take any actual real-life considerations into effect. (It was done in a stainless steel room with a controlled stream of measured particles being emitted. A major air cleaner retailer repeated the experiment but in an office with furniture and normal air flow, and our class of machines totally blew away all the electrostatic precipitators, but whatever; obviously Consumer Reports is mostly interested in making charts and graphs and less interested in how you actually live with the thing.)
