13 out of 13 people found this review helpful.
Some intrinsic flaws, but still eminently necessary
Date of Review: Jan 14, 2000
Consumer Reports faithfuls have a really religious-like quality to them, not making any moves unless they're sure it's okay vis-a-vis The Magazine. This is sort of unsurprising, since the way to get the most out of CR is to subscribe, faithfully hang on to the issues, and nowadays, subscribe to the for-pay web site archives. With all that Consumer Report-ing floating around, you probably do develop a bit of loyalty whether you want to or not.
An irritation to most of us and no doubt a source of pride to the editors, CR is really a subscriber's magazine -- I have just picked up a copy that's reviewing stoves, when what's more urgently needed is a fridge. Hmm. There are also 'teaser' mentions on the cover of coffee and moisturizer reviews. Who doesn't use these? (That was rhetorical; sit back down!) There's some use in every issue, though it's debatable whether it'll be US$3.50 worth for you.
There is a certain Michael Moore/Adbusters quality to Consumer Reports that's always appealed to me. The last page is a wall-o'-shame for lying product claims and come-ons; my only regret is that this 'Selling It' section has always occupied only the back page, not, say, half the magazine. Here and there, though, there is still a certain fervour to CR's reporting. I'm not sure who writes the articles; they've retained their bland, objective flavour for the most part, but here and there a bit more editing wouldn't kill them, ditto avoiding having people who can barely write pound out medical reports.
There is a bit of hit-and-miss involved in CR; somebody once accused me of 'guerilla consumerism,' and I suspect only a nut like myself would find fault with the small sins of omission: a review of the "dry cleaning in your dryer" product range still doesn't answer my main question (how badly are my sweaters going to shrink??), a write-up on 'Special K Plus' is old news, and not really news at all: it's a...cereal. Still, I shrugged off an article about satellite and local television as 'old news' until I read it: as much as I've heard about this (I live in an area that doesn't get local channels without a dish), CR still managed to tell me something new. Very good.
About the meat of the magazine -- its product tests and ratings -- these are still useful, though see above re: problems with having to subscribe and archive, and they can never cover quite as many products as you'd like them to. The aforementioned moisturizer report doesn't include any of the umpteen bottles clogging my bathroom, though it was still worth a read just to confirm my suspicions about store brand product imitations often not being the same as the originals.
The latest issue also explained to me why milk is suddenly starting to show up in stupid round plastic bottles (fits in cup holders, among other things), re-affirmed my decision to stick to organic milk, told me that 'Millstone' coffee was a Procter & Gamble-owned thing, that I wasn't alone in suspecting that 'Starbucks' coffee really is sort of lousy, gave me a bit of info about cheap cashmere, and a pile of other trivia (make mental note to be 'body-scanned' at Levi's in San Francisco), and so on and on.
Since I can't be bothered to convert, I mean, subscribe and keep it around, it still fits nicely into the 'flight magazine' category -- pick up at one end of your trip, discard at the other, having walked off slightly more knowledgeable about, say, your milk fussiness. Anyone considering a major purchase would probably be better served by the on-line (www.ConsumerReports.org) archives, though.
