If there is one site on the Internet that I both respect and hate at the same time it’s Consumerist.com. On one hand they give customers some pull in fighting consumer issues and on the other they post stories that damage reputations without actually researching the complaint!
From Consumerist:
“Randy tried to get new O and P keys for his HP laptop. The outsourced, English-is-not-his-first-language, customer service rep won’t sell or send him the keys and instead insists that Randy sit in for a $298 repair. Blithely indifferent to Randy’s increasing incredulity and rage, the customer service rep suggests that for that amount of money, Randy should just buy a new laptop for $400. That’s right, a new laptop because two of the keys are bad. The ridiculous chat transcript, inside…”
They then posted the transcript of the online chat that “Randy” (the Tipper) had with HP support.
So what’s wrong with this scenario? Well here’s the thing: the Consumerist doesn’t research their stories! They get their stories from these anonymous tippers and post the stories on their site without contacting the company being accused for their side of the story. I’m sorry but that’s just bad reporting.
But then again, no one can claim that the Consumerist has ever been about upholding journalistic integrity. It’s just a site where you can rage against “the corporations” that apparently do nothing but screw everyone around us (even though, you know, they employ thousand and give use the products that we consume and love). And don’t you dare disagree with a Consumerist story, as soon as you post a comment even slightly critical of the Tipper or of the site you get banned. Permanently.
So what should the Consumerist have done with this story? Well for starters they should have researched the nature of the replacement keyboard that the Tipper requires. They would have soon realized that the “English-is-not-his-first-language” tech support guy was right: you can’t just mail replacement keys for this specific keyboard, the entire thing needs to be replaced. That’s just the DESIGN!
Secondly, I agree that $298 is ridiculous for a keyboard repair when you can buy the keyboard itself for $25 (here) and then go down to your local Best Buy and have them install it for you for about $40. Or just do it yourself, it’s not hard. But what gets me about the Tippers attitude is this: He claims that he’s got warranty but he never offers to fax over his receipt! That’s all he has to do, fax over his proof of purchase. HP would take a look, apologize, correct their records, and replace the keyboard for no charge.
Consumerist should have called HP, got the full story and then worked with the Tipper to resolve the issue. Instead they hurriedly post another one-sided story (from a Tipper who sounds like a douche) that’s guaranteed to gain traffic and agreeable comments from the tech-illiterates that populate their comment section.
Sorry for the rant but websites like Consumerist just piss me off.
Look, there’s no love lost between myself and The Consumerist, or more accurately, none lost between myself and the legion of pedantic ass-clowns who post there. I’ve never seen a less imaginative, less compassionate group of self-important morons in my life. Whatever good the site does, those assholes negate with their toxic presence, but I digress. If you’re under the impression that the Consumerist is there to report on things, you’re not in possession of an ideal of the site that’s in keeping with the reality of its purpose.
It’s a consumer advocacy site, chief, not the Wall Street Journal. For better or for worse, the site mainly exists as a means for consumers to air out their grievances with businesses, and to give the businesses involved the opportunity to do right by them. To expect them to call HP and get the company’s side of the story is expecting too much out of the site, because that’s not its intended purpose. And lest you be concerned that they’re too one sided, you can rest easy knowing that they always post their own opinions about them along with the tips that they post, and that they’re not always favorable to the tipper. Neither are the comments, for that matter.
Methinks your issue isn’t so much that Consumerist didn’t do what you consider to be its due diligence by nailing down HP for its side of the story. Nah, I think you’re sore because you’re too invested in the story for your own good, and you think that the general public is too stupid to consider the possibility that HP isn’t necessarily wrong just because the Consumerist posted a tip from a consumer that portrayed the company in a negative light. Can’t see why you’d care, but maybe they’re a chance that they are. However in this particular case the OP’s complaints are valid. I’m not sure if you caught this, but it’s that he can’t simply replace the needed parts that is exactly the tipper’s issue with HP! Perhaps the tech support guy was right and that’s just the way HP chooses to do things, but that HP does things in an incredibly shortsighted manner doesn’t invalidate the tipper’s complaint. If anything, it serves to shed light on an issue that HP might want to consider addressing some day if they don’t want to risk seeing this sort of complaint become more commonplace. I know that I would be very hesitant to buy a laptop from HP knowing that I might be forced to send it in for minor repairs on components that I could replace myself if only they would make them available to me to do so. Especially since HP might conveniently forget that my unit it still under warranty, rendering those minor repairs ridiculously overpriced in comparison to the work that would need to be done.
As for what the tipper did or didn’t do, you’ve fallen into the same mind trap that most of the site’s own commentators do. In the absence of information, you’ve chosen to interpret the situation in a manner that allows you to pass self-serving judgment on the tipper. How do you know that he didn’t offer to send in his receipt after that chat? Moreover, I would like to know why, in an age where computers have pervaded every corner of the country’s infrastructure, a company that builds them for a living can’t seem to keep accurate records of consumer warranties? Which, incidentally enough, is another of the tipper’s issues. Why should he be required to send in a receipt at all, when HP should have his warranty on file? Clearly you lack objectivity. To top it all off, you brazenly suggest that instead of having his laptop be repaired under warranty as it should be, the tipper should pay for additional parts and perform the repairs himself. That’s the most ridiculous, anti-consumer suggestion you could make, thus deftly illustrating that you’re only aware of the Consumerist at all because they mentioned HP. The idea behind the site isn’t to give consumers ways around a company’s ineptitude, it’s about holding the company accountable so that consumers don’t have to. All this, and yet you have the gall to complain because the Consumerist posted an unfavorable tip about HP? Please.
Sorry for the rant, but I do so dislike it when I find glaring examples of a lack of objectivity.
How do you propose that HP keep warranty information for each customer? HP does not operate its own stores like Apple does and so does not directly interact with the customer until something goes wrong. Besides every HP computer comes with a warranty card that you can send off to HP with your warranty information filled out, the problem is that almost no one does this.
In any case the manufacturer provides the warranty service, it is not unreasonable for the customer to provide proof of purchase in order to claim this warranty service.
My comments regarding having the customer fix the keyboard himself stem from the sensational price in the Consumerist headline that claimed that HP would like to replace two keys for almost $300 dollars. I provided the proper context and pricing of such a repair. It was a suggestion for the customer since it seems he’s unwilling to simply fax over his receipt to settle the issue and get a free repair.
http://boywithgrenade.org/2010/03/16/the-consumerist-the-new-censorist/
Pretty much sums up my problems with the consumerist. I agree with this article 110%. The “consumerist” is little more than a rant forum for people who were too stupid/lazy/greedy to just pay for their stuff and go.
Lately (within the past few months) the articles on the site are pretty much non stories. If I had to pick one in particular it’d be:
http://consumerist.com/2010/12/best-buy-charges-7-more-than-advertised-for-blu-ray.html
where Phil posts another rant against Best Buy. The reason? The OP was in too big of a hurry to notice that the price he paid for the Inception bluray was the INSTORE price. So, after realizing that he was charged the (gasp) instore price as opposed to the online price, does he man up and politely request the price match?
No, he goes on a rant forum to vent about the fact that he couldn’t check his facts beforehand. And, as usual, Phil could’ve saved himself a lot of grief by doing 2 minutes worth of google-fu research and realized that ALL major companies have higher instore prices than they do on the web.
I could ALMOST give it to Phil for jumping the gun if they didn’t further their mistake by censoring their comments. I found this out the hard way as I had the… nerve… apparently, to disagree with Phil and the OP. Two hours later not only is my comment not there, but my account is banned…. for saying the exact same stuff that others had in the comments section.
This is where the good, and I use that term lightly, folks at the consumerist cross the line. If they can have the nerve to rant about censorship ( http://consumerist.com/2011/01/censorship-shrink-ray-takes-racial-epithet-out-of-huck-finn.html ) and then censor their own comments section with anyone who even remotely disagrees with them then they are violating their own purpose for being there.
Consumers
Union is an expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission since
its founding in 1936 has been to work for a
fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers.
To maintain independence and impartiality, Consumer Media, like Consumers
Union, accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda
other than the interests of consumers.
Direct from their ToA page. However you are doing absolutely noone a service by: A. Editing/removing comments that are anyway critical of the OP, even if the majority of readers are in agreement. B. Editing/removing comments that are critical of the webpage itself. If just one or two people are critical then you may safely make your own opinion. However, if a large majority of the postings (the censored/unscensored) ones are all in agreement that it’s a non article and recommend that you do research then by all means, DO THE F*&^ING research.
If more than a few of the readers are being critical then it should be noted why, and try to rectify it. The solution isn’t to pretend that dissent doesn’t exist but rather to adapt you research/storytelling around your reader feed back.
*puff* *puff* /endrantmode
P.S. For anyone calling me a liar make an account and post one comment that counters what the consumerist says. Then reply and tell me how long it took before your account is deleted.
I just posted the following on boywithgrenade.org and I thought it would be good to put this here as well.
On Sep 23, 2011 I sent an email to Ms. Marco. It was as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Marco:
Since you are the Executive Editor of Consumerist I felt you should be the person that I write to.
I would like to start off by saying I was very happy when Consumers Union first purchased The Consumerist. In the beginning it seemed to be doing, for the most part, what it was supposed to do. I, at one time, was a big contributor to the Consumerist site. I ended my contributions quite some time ago because of what the site was becoming, and has now almost fully become.
I would appreciate you answering the following;
Why isn’t the comments code enforced? Other than an occasional disemvoweling I see the ALL of the rules broken every time I read posts. What I see now on Consumerist are people who just want to make one joke after the other and to hell with what happened to the person that the article was about. I also see people blaming the victim and making nothing but negative comments. I believe the wost are the people who joke about others being hurt or killed and use the rational that it’s their way of coping. That is PURE BS! Why don’t they think about the people/families of the victims? How do they feel when they read the jokes about their loved ones? There are also the negative comments posted about some of the Consumerist team members when a story the team member posts isn’t up to some phony standard. I again ask, why no comments code enforcement?
In addition I see the same old things being posted, for example; (I make my own [fill in the blank] at home.) This is not only off topic but don’t you feel it got old and tired after the hundredth time someone posted it? Companies have been taken to task, and rightly so, for saying they are “taking it seriously.” Why aren’t the people who run Consumerist the posters to task about the “I make my own..” posts?
It seems that the site also has a clique. If someone makes a comment disagreeing with a post made by one of the people in the clique then that someone had better beware because of the negative reaction they will get. It’s like the clique is saying “How dare you disagree with one of us.”. To be blunt it’s like some of them honestly believe their s… doesn’t stink!
Other examples can be sited but I am sure you get what I am saying.
Consumerist has become, in my opinion, a joke site for stand-up comic Want-to-Be’s .
Thank you for reading this.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I never received any response to my email and, I believe things have gotten worse. I am considering ending my very long relationship (more than 40 years) with Consumers Union by canceling the subscriptions I have to their various publications.
In addition, on May 17, 2012 consumerist.com posted an article titled “Safeway’s General Counsel Jokes That Hillary Clinton & Nancy Pelosi Are Worth Less Than Pigs”. Shortly, after several posts, that story was removed from the site and no explanation was ever given.