Thank you for the comments and feedback @mark_m, @syncretic and @Gregr. As mentioned in my edit at the top of this post, I’ve moved this part of the discussion to a new thread to allow for on-topic discussion about unfair trading laws, which are important developments to our country’s consumer law. Please refer to our guidelines about staying on topic for more.
I’ve placed a cooldown timer on this topic for 24 hours, to allow us to reflect and respond to this feedback. Your comments are important to us and we believe we have enough information for the purpose of consideration for now, and we don’t wish to cause any unnecessary frustration or for conversations to become circular, which does not improve improve the discussion (again, please refer to the guidelines if needed).
Thank you @syncretic, you have succinctly summarised the purpose of the article, our need to have a voice in consultations on new laws and new regulations (these consultations are a Cabinet requirement and an important part of the process).
We are always happy to receive feedback, positive and negative, and will consider it carefully. So far, the negative feedback is that the article lined at the top of this page is ‘tabloid’. For reference, the Collins definition of tabloid:
A tabloid is a newspaper that has small pages, short articles, and lots of photographs . Tabloids are often considered to be less serious than other newspapers.
Objectively, I don’t think this article meets the definition of tabloid. Generally, if what is meant is lower quality or sensationalist pop culture material, I also question whether this is the best way to address the issue of the presentation of this article. While we do take on all feedback, please understand we need to encompass all the feedback we receive from our 200K+ members, and that constructive feedback is most highly regarded.
Informing consumers about important issues and the way we are contributing to the conversation forms a part of our content. The article on unfair trading laws and their affect on super, attempts to summarise some of this activity. We acknowledge that it assumes some context, so for some people, for example those unaware of regulatory processes, it may require further reading outside the article. We provide links to the Treasury’s Regulatory Impact Statement in the article for this purpose. For others, it may not provide enough information. CHOICE is not a tabloid by definition, but it is not an academic journal either. We will do our best to bridge the gap and present information in an accessible way for consumers.
@Gregr, I note that this has been a frequent criticism you have levelled at CHOICE. You are a CHOICE member, your feedback and support is valued to us. I’m sorry that you feel this way, it’s not our intent to frustrate anyone. CHOICE produces a wide variety of content. During our 60+ year history, we have also produced a great deal of lifestyle content, some of it is not serious in nature. It occurs alongside harder hitting investigations that are very serious, and in our more recent history - campaigns and policy work, which is the case with this article.
It can be quite difficult to get people interested and talking about financial regulation, even if it is important at an individual level such as is the case with superannuation. If you have constructive suggestions on how we can better cover these issues and attract attention to these important consumer topics, please feel free to make your suggestions below.
Next, we have an allegation that this is clickbait. From Merriam Webster:
: something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest
It is difficult to remember a time when you could scroll through the social media outlet of your choice and not be bombarded with: You’ll never believe what happened when … This is the cutest thing ever … This the biggest mistake you can make … Take this quiz to see which character you are on … They are all classic clickbait models.
—Emily Shire
We do aim to write headlines that entice readers to want to click through to our website, this is true. Is this content of dubious value or interest? It should be apparent without further explanation as to why CHOICE, a consumer group, feels this matter is of interest.
I take it to mean that the headline, ‘How unfair trading laws could boost your retirement fund’ is pointing out these unfair trading laws will have an impact on retirement funds, and that this information did not meet expectation. We say in the subheading, " it’s vital that new unfair trading laws also apply to financial services, including superannuation." In a literal sense, our position is that including superannuation under these laws will boost retirement funds. In the article, we include the example of ‘fund failure letters’. This is a specific example to expand on the real world consequences of the current law and its effect on retirement funds, and explains why it should be improved.
Regardless, we understand in this case from your response, that the framing has clearly not worked for you and we apologise. Headlines, and how articles are framed, are open to some interpretation. How would others frame this issue, or what is the best way to talk about this topic? Constructive answers to this question will be valued and considered.
The below disclosure is contained in the article:
This content was produced by Super Consumers Australia which is an independent, nonprofit consumer organisation partnering with CHOICE to advance and protect the interests of people in the Australian superannuation system.
More information about Super Consumers Australia, is readily available. We would not be discussing this if the information and declaration was not readily available.
Funding is a common complaint that we need to address. All the information about our funding is provided transparently on our website, it is quite lengthy and not practical to include in full on every published article when the information is already provided in a dedicated space. We occasionally undergo partnerships in various areas, and this is always clearly disclosed. We believe our current disclosures meet best practice, and follow or improve upon other entities. Nonetheless, I will raise the disclosure notice, including this discussion, with a team independent to the CHOICE Community for review.
The simple reality is CHOICE needs funding for its continued existence, and this is mostly via memberships. For some people, any funding whatsoever = is outright evil, and for those people, CHOICE is unlikely to meet their standards. I hope they apply them to all aspects of their life and wish them well. Over the years, no matter how many times or the different ways we provide this information, we are still met with criticism and scepticism on this matter.
But, this is okay. I’m glad we attract skeptical people, those who take the time to look into these matters. Hopefully, when they look, they will see the details that we have attempted to make plain. I hope the prompts contribute to the independent, enduring nature of CHOICE. If collaboration, partnerships and the need for funding, and the way CHOICE is going about it, are concerns, that is something for each individual to assess and decide for themselves. Hopefully the value of the information and reviews we provide, coupled with the value of the advocacy work we carry out benefiting all Australians and the support we offer consumers each day contributes to this decision.
