I pay the subscription fee regardless of whether I use the service regularly or not. I see it as a contribution to help Choice keep up the good work.
5 Likes
Choice is one thing that I trust not to be Fake News!
Iâve been a print subscriber forever and an online subscriber since you went online, I think. Just basic Choice, not computer, etc. I like reading the magazine and passing it on to a family member to enjoy.
As for not often relevant, when do people not need to buy soap or washing powder or everyday cleaners and the many consumables that you compare? And when does anyone not need Choice to lobby for consumers to get the right label advice? And to make sure our food is what producers say it is (free range). And to get a better deal for livestock (chooks and pigs).
I love the comparison trials, and if Iâm not in the market for an appliance, someone I know often is and will ask me to check out your verdict on something theyâre looking at. I consider that fair. I also appreciate being able to check out previous trials.
I use a laptop, so I can take advantage of the larger screen real estate to see enough columns in the comparisons, but I really appreciate the simplification of the end results and the recommended list.
Iâm sure I remember in the old days that advertisers were forbidden to quote Choice! What happened to that?
Keep up the good work and the reputation for being squeaky clean and above reproach - or else all is lost!
4 Likes
Completely agree. CHOICE is supposed to be the consumers ally and yet it too treats its members (who in theory own the Association) to dodgy marketing tactics. For example, recently when I looked at buying a new fridge, there was very little correlation between what was available at my local Hardly Normals, Good Guys and so on and what Choice tested. After years of refusing to purchase the âadd onâ on line membership, I succumbed this year - but at the moment probably wonât next year.
If it costs an amount to provide a service (magazine, on-line access, testing appliances, funding for consumer protection work) - just say a membership is whatever it costs, rather than the current system. It is transparent, open and everyone is in the same boat. Also consider taking samples from manufacturers when offered rather than buying the test subjects - Iâm sure the multitude of car, electronics and other online review sites will tell you how to determine if you got the âspecially preparedâ item as they donât seen to have trouble doing it.
1 Like
This is a practice fraught with risk. Firstly even if you acknowledge it is âgiftedâ and assert that no benefit was given, the user may still think that some sort of favoritism was given in the tests thus leading to a reduction in faith and whether the tests were impartial.
Secondly some âGiftersâ may then say we provided our test machine to Choice thereby setting a false belief that their product was somehow a good one because Choice used it.
The current buy from the market at market prices is the least risky of behaviours and should be celebrated rather than shunned.
4 Likes
While that is the gold standard it is also common to find that the makes and models Choice tests can be curiously difficult to find in the market, and products many of us think are common or should be included are often omitted.
What is your way forward when the budget wonât support a cross section of products some of us think should be included but didnât make the cut? Standing ground by not delivering tests on âthe products I wantâ can be as much of a disincentive as accepting samples.
Surely Choice could be able to accept samples in a blind manner with the donor companies being prohibited from using the act for their marketing.
1 Like
Perhaps this is where your membership could be asked what brands should be tested, and I understand your feelings about not delivering tests on âproducts I wantâ. They could also find out what sells in the market and test the most widely purchased brands. This may still mean you miss the best ones to buy, as the products you should be purchasing may not be âmain streamâ brands. A mix of these options, possibly including donations, could also be a choice but I am no expert in this field of customer/consumer needs satisfaction.
There may not be an easy fix and donations may form part of the mix in the end but any donation from producers has an inherent risk of results being seen as biased and how do you stop a donor from advertising that act? You canât bind them with a contract as they could just say âNo donationsâ and you would be back at purchasing and if they did contract then it could be seen as a deal had been done to test that product and give better than actual results. I know there are these sorts of contracts out there but many have limited products to test because of the necessarily stringent nature of the contractual obligations that many firms will not submit to.
1 Like
All true, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, with the downside of anything, be they failed donations, failed blind supply, failed whatever, being the status quo.
