Since 1936, Consumer Reports has not allowed companies to use its name or ratings in advertising as a means of promoting their products. However, last week, a regular reader, Dan K., wrote to us saying “I just saw a Kia TV ad which appeared to be a blatant violation of Consumer Reports’ no-advertising policy.”
Here’s the commercial in question. Note what is shown and said at the 16-second mark:
It says that Consumer Reports recommended four different models of Kia vehicles and listed them. The faint fine print on the bottom of the screen that virtually no one would be able to read says…
*MOUSE PRINT:
Consumer Reports does not endorse products or services.
If you were able to follow the QR code in the ad, it would take you to a ratings page at Consumer Reports where readers can see a summarized report about the particular vehicle including the ratings it was given in various categories (only first screen shown below).
Pretty telling, however, is the disclosure that C/R makes in their summary report that this model is just one of 153 recommended SUVs. To MrConsumer, that diminishes what he assumed was a rather unique distinction of getting to be “CR Recommened.”
The traditional policy of the magazine did not allow companies to promote how well Consumer Reports rated their products or even mention Consumer Reports in advertising. But starting in 2022, the “No Commercial Use Policy” changed. The new policy, among other things, allows manufacturers to license the CR/Consumer Reports Recommended logo, and it probably costs them a pretty penny.
A spokesperson for Consumer Reports explained the policy shift in this edited excerpt:
Consumers now rely on many different information channels when researching and shopping for products and services, including social media, online e-commerce, and digital advertising. To help serve consumers where they need guidance and to increase our impact in the marketplace, we’ve expanded our licensing program. Only after Consumer Reports publishes a “Recommended” rating, can a manufacturer opt to display the CR Recommended mark, provided they agree to abide by our strict usage guidelines.
The fees we charge to display “CR Recommended” funds the program’s operating costs, including administering and monitoring the program to assure proper usage. Any remaining funds will support CR’s mission, including our consumer education and advocacy.
So the Consumer Reports non-commercialization policy still exists, but now it has a huge asterisk after it. How do you feel about the policy shift? We welcome your comments.
Incidentally, C/R confirmed that Kia did purchase a license for the above ad, as did Nissan for this ad. However, we’re pretty sure that the use of “CR Recommended” on Costco’s website for an LG dishwasher is not compliant because the summarized report is illegible even on a 24-inch monitor.
At one time only CR really was of any use. I do have a web subscription vs decades of the magazine. With all the competition, their #’s have gone way down. While it would be best if they maintained the original standard, finances DO play a role in all “publications”. This might have bothered me years ago, but today it is of minnimal concern.
But, provided they ensure influence ratings.
Pretty soon they’ll be just like the BBB
Seems like a continuation of the slippery slope to me. Now CR has a financial incentive in recommending products. And a disincentive for being overly critical about products, since that might prompt manufacturers to boycott payments for CR Recommended licenses.
If the choice is between this compromise and CR going under, perhaps this makes sense for them. But this is another step in CR losing its shine. They already employ fairly sleazy tactics for magazine and online subscriptions.
I made the same complaint several years ago to CR – several years ago (2021?) concluding that “Colston Ware (one of the founders of CU) must be turning over in his grave.” [I having met him around 1970 – at CU in Mt. Vernon – at their then headquarters.]
Unlike Rob N, the whole thing bothers me a lot. I guess it’s because ever since I can remember, Consumer Reports (CR) has had a strict, no-advertising policy. I and my parents have been subscribers for more years than I care to admit; and I’m no kid. Not just for advertising violations, they’ve never lost a lawsuit which they’ve pursued with a vengeance. I’m delighted that they’re going to get beaucoup bucks with their licensing deals, but it still disappoints me that they’re getting the money via the advertising/licensing avenue–the main reason, for me, is that it absolutely diminishes CR’s credibility.
They quoted to Mr. Consumer, “…provided they agree to abide by our strict usage guidelines.” I’d like to know what they are. Hadn’t heard about Costco’s dishwasher violation; perhaps if Costco pays enough, all will be OK with CR.
CR’s abridged response: “We needed another revenue stream, and they pay to promote us at the same time. It’s a win-win.”
I’m OK with CR monetizing what is otherwise a public service for their free-access research (many that Mouseprint links to every week). And I deeply appreciate that Mouseprint sleuths out the free versions and links them for me.
There are huge costs to perform statistically-significant testing, analyses, and reporting. If they aren’t collecting magazine/online ad revenue (for reasons of strict independence), they have to cover costs largely through donations and subscriptions. I’m guessing both of those sources are drying up and their survival depends on new revenue via credentialing manufacturer products for a fee.
IMO, CR is (and always has been) the only purely non-biased product review organization. As long as they are transparent in saying they take fees from manufacturers who would like to promote CR’s unbiased, valid report data, I’m OK with this change. The alternative is that they die a slow bankruptcy death and leave consumers without a dependable independent lab-tested reference.
I’ve often thought that a company should be able to refer to “Consumer Reports” ratings. I think the way CR has laid out its new policy is fine, as long as the restrictions and caveats are honored by businesses and monitored by CR.
I no longer subscribe to CR.
This adds to reasons.
Reports do not examine environmental impact of products.
I stopped using CR decades ago. I realized I disagreed with them on products I knew about (computers / phones ), why would I trust them with things I didn’t? (although some of their tests were interesting)
I’ve been a subscriber for decades, but this disappoints me greatly, even though companies cannot “buy” good ratings. The appearance of impropriety.
Conflict of interest. Same thing that destroyed the BBB.
As one who has subscribed to the Consumer Reports magazine for about 50 years, and to the online consumerreports.org for 18 years, I am surprised I have not heard this directly from Consumer Reports.
It seems the “No Commercial Use Policy” changed in September 2019. The August 2019 Consumer Reports magazine says, in the small print on page 4, in part, About Consumer Reports: “…We don’t accept paid advertising. We don’t accept free test samples from manufacturers. We don’t allow our name or content to be used for any promotional purposes…”.
The September 2019 Consumer Reports magazine says, in part, on page 4, About Consumer Reports: “…We also license our content and data, as well as work with commercial partners to offer shopping and other consumer services, and may receive fees from these programs. These partnerships and programs do not constitute CR’s endorsement of any products or services…”.
Page 5 on both issues discusses “Permissions” but there is no difference in what they say.
I could find nothing more in the Sept 2019 issue which disclosed that they had changed their policy, something I believe they should have done.
That said, as some have mentioned, the change may be a necessity, and they claim they “…maintain a strict separation between our commercial operations and our testing and editorial operations.”
I find Consumer Reports invaluable, which is why I have subscribed since the 1970’s. I hope that doesn’t change, and wish they would be more upfront about the change. They still have that opportunity…
This is really disheartening to me. I imagine there is a large crossover between Mouse Print subscribers and Consumer Reports subscribers. I’m a paid CR member and I rely on their rankings a lot. I think it will devalue their name to have it blasted out all over the place. It’s going to become just another IIHS and JD Power sticker on car ads.
Having said that, CR has had me sold on the Telluride and Palisade for a while now we’ve been seriously considering picking a used one up and those two models are consistently in the top 5 of their category the last 3-4 years.
As usual, I find all the comments here thoughtful and can relate to many. Assuming CR has done its homework, they may have no choice but to take ads to survive. If so, they are nonetheless sacrificing some degree of at least the appearance of independence, which had been a key differentiator. It’s hard to find any sizable organization nowadays funded entirely by subscribers and donations, even those that proclaim to be commercial-free. If they need to provide some reassurance, perhaps they can have a peer review performed periodically by, say, Consumer World 🙂
I don’t know what happened to consumer reports, if it was bought by a hedge fund or an equity firm, but I observed about a year ago that they had gone for profit corporate. One of the first clues was there sweepstakes competition, which never revealed a winner. And the amount of marketing material I started receiving from them. I’ve given up that account and no longer subscribe to consumer reports.
It’s easily verifiable that Consumer Reports remains an independent non-profit.
Someone above mentioned JD Power – they are not independent or non-profit.
They all sell out at some point in time. I have been a members since 1964 and have noticed, in the last 10 yrs or so, there hard nosed reviews and self proclaimed policies have loosened quite a bit. I thought it must be with the problem because I very rarely see anyone else complain about it. I can no longer trust their research or the test results.
CR has taken that first step on that slippery slope. Once they start taking money from businesses, for whatever reason, their ratings will eventually be influenced. It’s human nature, they won’t be able to stop it. They won’t be able to put the lion back in the paper bag.
CR car recommendations aren’t worth much. They make a big show every year of publicizing the least reliable cars, but the spread between the top and bottom is so small that it’s meaningless. Sometimes the least reliable car is also recommended by CR, but it gets slammed in headlines in lots of other media because it “least” reliable.
I’m canceling my subscription
I am against your new commercialization policy. For me, it diminishes the value and reputation of CR.
It’s ALWAYS about the money. Everything can be bought or sold these days.
Now that CR opened that door, it’s all down hill from there. CR’s excuse for allowing corporations to use the recommendations is poor at best. A wise consumer knows where to find guidance when buying a car and the last place I would look is on the actual car companies advertisement. What a joke, I question CR’s motives now.