I worked for a non-profit, and I may again someday, so I have first hand familiarity to funding issues. Our choice in equipment was dictated by the manufacturer that provided the incredibly low prices for the equipment and the underwriting for the large events. The town in which we were headquartered allowed us to occupy a floor of the municipal building without rent — or at least with increasingly late rent payments — as long as we performed certain functions for the town.

Any kind of funding often comes with something in return — the conflict is when what is given in return is not completely honest information.

In retrospect, I suspect that Consumer Reports doea a good job on balance. They were not the ideal example for me to use.

The broader point I would like to make is that a non-profit or not-for-profit organization can have hidden motives just as readily as a capitalist corporation. I believe that too many people are lulled into trust by these designations. Everyone is getting their funding from somewhere, and charitable foundations can be just as corrupting as industry lobbies when they have an ideology to promote.

Thanks for allowing me to join in the conversation, and keep up the good work – I like your blog.

“Such affiliations could result in favoring one manufacturer over another (union vs. non-union shop), or slanting studies to produce data designed to support law suits.”

CR seems to favor non-union shops when it comes to autos, so this bias may be difficult to prove.

Here’s an interesting article from CNET about their procedures for technology reviews.

As for the Trial Lawyers, they are a deeply political group as you can see from their website if you care to visit. They advocate for union shops only and what some would consider alarmist product-safety standards. Such affiliations could result in favoring one manufacturer over another (union vs. non-union shop), or slanting studies to produce data designed to support law suits.

My point was simply that their model of performing reviews does not necessarily give them integrity and ethics. As you yourself
wrote “…it’s true that everyone has a bias and an agenda�.

I still suggest that rather than taking their purity at face value, a wise consumer would consider that there may be other means of bias. After weighing that possibility, go with the source you consider most trustworthy.

1. You *believe* or you know? Can you find a source for reference?
2. If they are “deeply entwined” with the Trial Lawyers, how would that have an effect on their consumer reviews?

Everyone needs to get funded, and it’s true that everyone has a bias and an agenda. In my opinion, Consumer Reports’ methods are sound and result in more accurate reviews than those published by outfits that placate their advertisers.

The outcome: an ethical snapshot of a product or service.

I followed CR’s test taste on coffees in which cheaper beans (Eight ‘O Clock and even the Dunkin Donuts brew) scored higher than many of the high-end (expensive) brands.